Westminster Confession of Existentialism
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>and presents it as "objective truth" Too, Crock likes to dismiss all
other argumentation as invalid because he says they rely on
"existential premises". The aim of this post is to discredit Crock by
showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth and; 2)
The Confession relies on the very existential premises that Crock so
despises thus exposing his monumental hypocracy.
First, how do we know the Confession is not "objective truth?" This
one's easy. The Confession cannot be "objectively true" because it is
an interpretation of the Bible. Written in the mid 17th century, it is
an interpretation that is not even in the social or cultural context
of 1st century Middle East. Rather, it was written by so-called
"Divines" who were, in fact, a bunch of Puritan clergy for the
purposes of reforming The Church of England. It was the abolition of
Episcopalianism for Calvainism in the Church of England. Basically,
that means favoring one interpretation (Calvinism) over another
(Episcopalian). Niether of which is objectively true for the fact that
they are "intepratations."
Having said that, how does that effect the veracity of the Bible? Even
if one believes the "propositions of Bible are objectivly true" (which
they are not), the Confession is an interpretation of the Bible and
thus a distortion of percieved "objective truth" (begs the question as
to why there is a need for such a document if the Bible is already
"objectively true"). As example of the Confession's methodology, I'd
like to look at one chapter entitled "Of Creation":
"I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the
manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness,
in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all
things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six
days, and all very good."[1]
End Quote
That is an interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 and therefore a
distortion of the perceived "objective truth" of the Bible--the "word
of God." And, it brings me to my second point.
Brock is fond of repeating the phrase "existentialism is untenable."
Unfortunately for Brock, existentialism is precisely what the
Westminster Confession relied on in RE-forming the Church of England
(emphasis mine). As a rhetorical question, why would one need a
reformation of "objective truth"? Does objective truth need
"reforming?" Clearly, not. Yet, the synods are constantly revising and
reforming their own document. For example, The Association of Reformed
Presbyterian Church states in reference to the Westminster Confession
of Faith this qualification:
"Agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster as the same is
received by the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church including
amendments approved by the General Synods of 1959, 1976, 1984, and
2001."
It is strange "objective truth" would need so many amendments and
revisions. Unless, of course, it is not objective truth. Rather, it is
the existential interpretation of rambling morons who think they
"know" objective truth."
What does this all mean? It means Brock is a hypocritical
existentialist who bashes others for using the same skills of
observation he uses. I.E., he's an asshole.
[1] http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html
[2] http://www.arpsynod.org/confcont.html
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>It's got some good information in it.
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>spelling errors, go ahead...lol
>
> Great post Scooter! May I publish it on my New Atheism blog?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>to Brock Organ and remove the last sentence?
Up to you. :) I can leave it as is too.
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>may remove them at your discretion.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>
bonfly
<anubis2@aapt.net.au>by writing something like "no it doesn't" then tack on a smiley face,
throw in an irrelevant quote from the westminster confession, then
follow that up with a paragraph of gibberish". He's nothing if not
predictable.
> [2]http://www.arpsynod.org/confcont.html
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>if he does. My aim is to discredit him and expose him for the
hypocritical fraud he is. Why? Because it brings me great pleasure ;)
Multiverse
<cutaway@worldnet.att.net>
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>I think m Scooter that what you refer to is the Westminster
contusion from which few ever survived. It seams to have
been a bruise of the brain leaving the victim brain dead.
Oh well so much for pure science.
Psychonomist
> [2]http://www.arpsynod.org/confcont.html
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 1, 11:54 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As we all know, Crock of Shit Organ frequently relies on this document
> and presents it as "objective truth" Too, Crock likes to dismiss all
> other argumentation as invalid because he says they rely on
> "existential premises".
socratic greeks, such as protagoras:
"His most famous saying is: "Man is the measure of all things: of
things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that
they are not" Like many fragments of the Presocratics, this phrase
has been passed down to us without any context, and its meaning is
open to interpretation. Plato ascribes relativism to Protagoras and
uses his predecessor's teachings as a foil for his own commitment to
objective and transcendent realities and values. Plato also ascribes
to Protagoras an early form of phenomenology, in which what is or
appears for a single individual is true or real for that individual.
Protagoras was a proponent of agnosticism. In his lost work, On the
Gods, he wrote: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing
whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the
obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life" (80B4
DK)."[1]
Its not surprising that someone who espouses "existence precedes
essence" or "man is the measure of all things" will favor a position
that denies God's existence. I think I do well to focus efforts on
defeating that principle.
Regards,
Brock
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth and; 2)
> The Confession relies on the very existential premises that Crock so
> despises thus exposing his monumental hypocracy.
6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
> First, how do we know the Confession is not "objective truth?" This
> one's easy. The Confession cannot be "objectively true" because it is
> an interpretation of the Bible. Written in the mid 17th century, it is
> an interpretation that is not even in the social or cultural context
> of 1st century Middle East. Rather, it was written by so-called
> "Divines" who were, in fact, a bunch of Puritan clergy for the
> purposes of reforming The Church of England. It was the abolition of
> Episcopalianism for Calvainism in the Church of England. Basically,
> that means favoring one interpretation (Calvinism) over another
> (Episcopalian). Niether of which is objectively true for the fact that
> they are "intepratations."
1) it is written in the mid 17th century and not the 1st century
2) it is an interpretation of the Bible
3) it was written by a group of people favoring one interpretation
over another
1) is true; but not especially relevant. 2) is not correct, the
Confession is not an interpretation of the Bible, rather, it is a set
of creedal statements for the purpose of, you guessed it:
6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
3) is a sociological statement in context of the culture, politics and
beliefs of that day. Though it is fair to say the Confession was
meant to voice the beliefs of a group of people in response to
another, it is not sufficient to explain it. A much more satisfying
historical account behind the "History of the Westminster Assembly of
Divines"[1] is available and quite fun to read. Limiting the document
to merely the sociological impact the Confession had is to beg the
question by presuming the premise.
Regards,
Brock
[1] http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> Unfortunately for Brock, existentialism is precisely what the
> Westminster Confession relied on in RE-forming the Church of England
> (emphasis mine).
>
> As a rhetorical question, why would one need a
> reformation of "objective truth"? Does objective truth need
> "reforming?" Clearly, not. Yet, the synods are constantly revising and
> reforming their own document. For example, The Association of Reformed
> Presbyterian Church states in reference to the Westminster Confession
> of Faith this qualification:
>
> "Agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster as the same is
> received by the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church including
> amendments approved by the General Synods of 1959, 1976, 1984, and
> 2001."
>
> It is strange "objective truth" would need so many amendments and
> revisions. Unless, of course, it is not objective truth. Rather, it is
> the existential interpretation of rambling morons who think they
> "know" objective truth."
6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
> existentialist who bashes others for using the same skills of
> observation he uses. I.E., he's an asshole.
6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 1, 1:35 pm, bonfly <anub...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> You do realise scooter that Brock (if he replies at all) will respond
> by writing something like "no it doesn't" then tack on a smiley face,
> throw in an irrelevant quote from the westminster confession, then
> follow that up with a paragraph of gibberish". He's nothing if not
> predictable.
"bonfly doth speaketh witheth the languageth that dissolveth into
confusioneth. This is not-eth to be preferredeth to our wonderfuleth
wayeth of speakingeth in the sixteenth-centuryeth."[1]
guoseth shimmahamma hesi hemina be quado discardo
espororarary quile in negdrred mera able for a kelarddf.
Regards,
Brock
[1] Chapter 37 Section 15 "Of Bonflys and Vanities"
bonfly
<anubis2@aapt.net.au>On Mar 3, 3:03 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 11:54 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > As we all know, Crock of Shit Organ frequently relies on this document
> > and presents it as "objective truth" Too, Crock likes to dismiss all
> > other argumentation as invalid because he says they rely on
> > "existential premises".
>
> Existentialism an old argument, going back at least to the pre-
> socratic greeks, such as protagoras:
>
> "His most famous saying is: "Man is the measure of all things: of
> things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that
> they are not" Like many fragments of the Presocratics, this phrase
> has been passed down to us without any context, and its meaning is
> open to interpretation. Plato ascribes relativism to Protagoras and
> uses his predecessor's teachings as a foil for his own commitment to
> objective and transcendent realities and values. Plato also ascribes
> to Protagoras an early form of phenomenology, in which what is or
> appears for a single individual is true or real for that individual.
>
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>On Mar 2, 11:03 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 11:54 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > As we all know, Crock of Shit Organ frequently relies on this document
> > and presents it as "objective truth" Too, Crock likes to dismiss all
> > other argumentation as invalid because he says they rely on
> > "existential premises".
>
> Existentialism an old argument, going back at least to the pre-
> socratic greeks, such as protagoras:
>
> "His most famous saying is: "Man is the measure of all things: of
> things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that
> they are not" Like many fragments of the Presocratics, this phrase
> has been passed down to us without any context, and its meaning is
> open to interpretation. Plato ascribes relativism to Protagoras and
> uses his predecessor's teachings as a foil for his own commitment to
> objective and transcendent realities and values. Plato also ascribes
> to Protagoras an early form of phenomenology, in which what is or
> appears for a single individual is true or real for that individual.
>
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>On Mar 2, 11:36 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 11:54 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The aim of this post is to discredit Crock by
> > showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth and; 2)
> > The Confession relies on the very existential premises that Crock so
> > despises thus exposing his monumental hypocracy.
>
> More accurately, my position is:
>
> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
Therfore, if, as you claim, the Bible is objectively true, the
interpretation is at best a distortion.
>
> > First, how do we know the Confession is not "objective truth?" This
> > one's easy. The Confession cannot be "objectively true" because it is
> > an interpretation of the Bible. Written in the mid 17th century, it is
> > an interpretation that is not even in the social or cultural context
> > of 1st century Middle East. Rather, it was written by so-called
> > "Divines" who were, in fact, a bunch of Puritan clergy for the
> > purposes of reforming The Church of England. It was the abolition of
> > Episcopalianism for Calvainism in the Church of England. Basically,
> > that means favoring one interpretation (Calvinism) over another
> > (Episcopalian). Niether of which is objectively true for the fact that
> > they are "intepratations."
>
> So you say the Confession is not correct (objectively true) because:
>
> 1) it is written in the mid 17th century and not the 1st century
> 2) it is an interpretation of the Bible
> 3) it was written by a group of people favoring one interpretation
> over another
>
> 1) is true; but not especially relevant.
further denigrates the accuracy of any interpretation precisely
because interpretation *requires* cultual context.--something the
Scots and English clearly did not have.
> 2) is not correct, the
> Confession is not an interpretation of the Bible,
As example of the Confession's methodology, I'd
like to look at one chapter entitled "Of Creation":
"I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the
manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and
goodness,
in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all
things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six
days, and all very good."[1]
End Quote
That is an interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 and therefore a
distortion of the perceived "objective truth" of the Bible--the "word
of God."
> of creedal statements for the purpose of, you guessed it:
>
> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
without interpretation.
>
> 3) is a sociological statement in context of the culture, politics and
> beliefs of that day.
yours or the beliefs of any other interpreter. The "divines" were
interpreters 1500 years removed, culturally and politically removed
from the reality of the superstitious Biblical authors, Brock. I knew
you'd catch on.
>Though it is fair to say the Confession was
> meant to voice the beliefs of a group of people in response to
> another, it is not sufficient to explain it. A much more satisfying
> historical account behind the "History of the Westminster Assembly of
> Divines"[1] is available and quite fun to read. Limiting the document
> to merely the sociological impact the Confession had is to beg the
> question by presuming the premise.
valid reference to what you claim is "objective truth".
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>On Mar 2, 11:48 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 11:54 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Brock is fond of repeating the phrase "existentialism is untenable."
> > Unfortunately for Brock, existentialism is precisely what the
> > Westminster Confession relied on in RE-forming the Church of England
> > (emphasis mine).
>
> > As a rhetorical question, why would one need a
> > reformation of "objective truth"? Does objective truth need
> > "reforming?" Clearly, not. Yet, the synods are constantly revising and
> > reforming their own document. For example, The Association of Reformed
> > Presbyterian Church states in reference to the Westminster Confession
> > of Faith this qualification:
>
> > "Agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster as the same is
> > received by the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church including
> > amendments approved by the General Synods of 1959, 1976, 1984, and
> > 2001."
>
> > It is strange "objective truth" would need so many amendments and
> > revisions. Unless, of course, it is not objective truth. Rather, it is
> > the existential interpretation of rambling morons who think they
> > "know" objective truth."
>
> Or more accurately:
>
> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
written document.
>
> > What does this all mean? It means Brock is a hypocritical
> > existentialist who bashes others for using the same skills of
> > observation he uses. I.E., he's an asshole.
>
> I think it means:
>
> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
written document.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock- Hide quoted text -
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 3, 2008, at 5:12 AM, bonfly wrote:
> In Brock's world, atheists are people who live outside of his "quota."
Its just not a new argument. I'm simply happy to point that out.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 3, 2008, at 9:04 AM, scooter wrote:
> None of this is relevant
Its very relevant. You claim the Confession is "existential". The
Confession does not articulate "existential" premises, in fact, it
articulates premises that are considered to be against existentialism.
Of course, if you claim the Confession is existential because the
process used to produce it, then you are simply begging the question.
I'm happy to note in response:
Humankind is not the measure of all things.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 3, 2008, at 9:25 AM, scooter wrote:
> On Mar 2, 11:36 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 11:54 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The aim of this post is to discredit Crock by
>>> showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth and;
>>> 2)
>>> The Confession relies on the very existential premises that Crock so
>>> despises thus exposing his monumental hypocracy.
>>
>> More accurately, my position is:
>>
>> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
>> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> More accurately, a summary reference *requires* interpretation.
> Therfore, if, as you claim, the Bible is objectively true, the
> interpretation is at best a distortion.
But then, by continuing your own incorrect line of reasoning, your
interpretation of my position is at best a distortion, which means
you've not addressing my position.
>> So you say the Confession is not correct (objectively true) because:
>>
>> 1) it is written in the mid 17th century and not the 1st century
>> 2) it is an interpretation of the Bible
>> 3) it was written by a group of people favoring one interpretation
>> over another
>>
>> 1) is true; but not especially relevant.
>
> It is relevant precisely because it relates to interpretation. It
> further denigrates the accuracy of any interpretation precisely
> because interpretation *requires* cultual context.--something the
> Scots and English clearly did not have.
But here you are again simply begging the question. Of course, if it
is your claim that the Confession authors could not help but interpret
because they lacked cultural context, then I note your disagreement
with them is not valid on grounds that you do not have their 17th
century cultural context, so your "attack" is not legitimate.
Of course, we're still back fundamentally to your circular argument,
which I note is not valid:
Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>> 2) is not correct, the
>> Confession is not an interpretation of the Bible,
>
> Wrong. I already demonstrated its interpretive attributes here:
>
> As example of the Confession's methodology, I'd
> like to look at one chapter entitled "Of Creation":
>
>
> "I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the
> manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and
> goodness,
> in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all
> things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six
> days, and all very good."[1]
> End Quote
>
>
> That is an interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 and therefore a
> distortion of the perceived "objective truth" of the Bible--the "word
> of God."
Begging the question. If you define any response to something else to
be interpretation, then what you are attacking is your interpretation
of the Confession and not the Confession, since you lack the 17th
century context required.
>> rather, it is a set
>> of creedal statements for the purpose of, you guessed it:
>>
>> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
>> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> A summary *requires* interpretation. One cannot summarize anything
> without interpretation.
Not true. Of course, following your logic, you are only reacting to
your interpretation of the Confession, and not the Confession.
>> 3) is a sociological statement in context of the culture, politics and
>> beliefs of that day.
>
> That's right, Brock. The "beliefs of that day" were different than
> yours or the beliefs of any other interpreter. The "divines" were
> interpreters 1500 years removed, culturally and politically removed
> from the reality of the superstitious Biblical authors, Brock. I knew
> you'd catch on.
But the cultural and sociological predicates you use to make your case
are not sufficient. You're simply begging the question.
>
>> Though it is fair to say the Confession was
>> meant to voice the beliefs of a group of people in response to
>> another, it is not sufficient to explain it. A much more satisfying
>> historical account behind the "History of the Westminster Assembly of
>> Divines"[1] is available and quite fun to read. Limiting the document
>> to merely the sociological impact the Confession had is to beg the
>> question by presuming the premise.
>
> Im not limiting the document to anything. I am discrediting it as a
> valid reference to what you claim is "objective truth".
By assuming the very premise that is under consideration, which I
reject:
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>>> What does this all mean? It means Brock is a hypocritical
>>> existentialist who bashes others for using the same skills of
>>> observation he uses. I.E., he's an asshole.
>>
>> I think it means:
>>
>> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
>> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> Or more accurately, a summary is an interpretation of an already
> written document.
Essence precedes existence.
Regards,
Brock
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>On Mar 3, 9:02 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2008, at 9:04 AM, scooter wrote:
>
> > None of this is relevant
>
> Its very relevant. You claim the Confession is "existential". The
> Confession does not articulate "existential" premises, in fact, it
> articulates premises that are considered to be against existentialism.
> Of course, if you claim the Confession is existential because the
> process used to produce it, then you are simply begging the question.
objectively true. In fact, in cannot even be used as a reference
precisely because its an interpretation based on existential premises
of observation. The "divines" employ the very existential method of
interpreting the Bible. By your own words, The Confession is
"untenable."
> I'm happy to note in response:
>
> Humankind is not the measure of all things.
"summary" from the Bible. Irrelevant because its an interpretation and
more precisely because "humans" measured it.
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>On Mar 3, 9:13 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2008, at 9:25 AM, scooter wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 11:36 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 1, 11:54 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The aim of this post is to discredit Crock by
> >>> showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth and;
> >>> 2)
> >>> The Confession relies on the very existential premises that Crock so
> >>> despises thus exposing his monumental hypocracy.
>
> >> More accurately, my position is:
>
> >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> > More accurately, a summary reference *requires* interpretation.
> > Therfore, if, as you claim, the Bible is objectively true, the
> > interpretation is at best a distortion.
>
> But then, by continuing your own incorrect line of reasoning, your
> interpretation of my position is at best a distortion, which means
> you've not addressing my position.
which is a summary. A summary requires interpretation and therefore,
by your own words is "untenable."
>
> >> So you say the Confession is not correct (objectively true) because:
>
> >> 1) it is written in the mid 17th century and not the 1st century
> >> 2) it is an interpretation of the Bible
> >> 3) it was written by a group of people favoring one interpretation
> >> over another
>
> >> 1) is true; but not especially relevant.
>
> > It is relevant precisely because it relates to interpretation. It
> > further denigrates the accuracy of any interpretation precisely
> > because interpretation *requires* cultual context.--something the
> > Scots and English clearly did not have.
>
> But here you are again simply begging the question. Of course, if it
> is your claim that the Confession authors could not help but interpret
> because they lacked cultural context, then I note your disagreement
> with them is not valid on grounds that you do not have their 17th
> century cultural context, so your "attack" is not legitimate.
"divines" could have understood the material of the Bible. The crucial
point is that they interpret. Because they are interpreting, they are
relying on observation which I note, by your own words, is
"untenable."
>
> Of course, we're still back fundamentally to your circular argument,
> which I note is not valid:
>
> Humankind is not the measure of all things.
since humankind actually did the "measuring" in this instance.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 2) is not correct, the
> >> Confession is not an interpretation of the Bible,
>
> > Wrong. I already demonstrated its interpretive attributes here:
>
> > As example of the Confession's methodology, I'd
> > like to look at one chapter entitled "Of Creation":
>
> > "I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the
> > manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and
> > goodness,
> > in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all
> > things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six
> > days, and all very good."[1]
> > End Quote
>
> > That is an interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 and therefore a
> > distortion of the perceived "objective truth" of the Bible--the "word
> > of God."
>
> Begging the question. If you define any response to something else to
> be interpretation, then what you are attacking is your interpretation
> of the Confession and not the Confession, since you lack the 17th
> century context required.
demonstrated.
>
> >> rather, it is a set
> >> of creedal statements for the purpose of, you guessed it:
>
> >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> > A summary *requires* interpretation. One cannot summarize anything
> > without interpretation.
>
> Not true. Of course, following your logic, you are only reacting to
> your interpretation of the Confession, and not the Confession.
that the Confession is an interpretation and therefore "untenable."
>
> >> 3) is a sociological statement in context of the culture, politics and
> >> beliefs of that day.
>
> > That's right, Brock. The "beliefs of that day" were different than
> > yours or the beliefs of any other interpreter. The "divines" were
> > interpreters 1500 years removed, culturally and politically removed
> > from the reality of the superstitious Biblical authors, Brock. I knew
> > you'd catch on.
>
> But the cultural and sociological predicates you use to make your case
> are not sufficient. You're simply begging the question.
the Confession is an interpretation of the Bible. Your point is moot.
>
>
>
> >> Though it is fair to say the Confession was
> >> meant to voice the beliefs of a group of people in response to
> >> another, it is not sufficient to explain it. A much more satisfying
> >> historical account behind the "History of the Westminster Assembly of
> >> Divines"[1] is available and quite fun to read. Limiting the document
> >> to merely the sociological impact the Confession had is to beg the
> >> question by presuming the premise.
>
> > Im not limiting the document to anything. I am discrediting it as a
> > valid reference to what you claim is "objective truth".
>
> By assuming the very premise that is under consideration, which I
> reject:
>
> Humankind is not the measure of all things.
"divines", did "measure" the Bible.
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>>
> >>> What does this all mean? It means Brock is a hypocritical
> >>> existentialist who bashes others for using the same skills of
> >>> observation he uses. I.E., he's an asshole.
>
> >> I think it means:
>
> >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> > Or more accurately, a summary is an interpretation of an already
> > written document.
>
> Essence precedes existence.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> On Mar 3, 9:13 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 2008, at 9:25 AM, scooter wrote:
> > > On Mar 2, 11:36 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Mar 1, 11:54 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>> The aim of this post is to discredit Crock by
> > >>> showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth and;
> > >>> 2)
> > >>> The Confession relies on the very existential premises that Crock so
> > >>> despises thus exposing his monumental hypocracy.
> >
> > >> More accurately, my position is:
> >
> > >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
> >
> > > More accurately, a summary reference *requires* interpretation.
> > > Therfore, if, as you claim, the Bible is objectively true, the
> > > interpretation is at best a distortion.
> >
> > But then, by continuing your own incorrect line of reasoning, your
> > interpretation of my position is at best a distortion, which means
> > you've not addressing my position.
>
> We aren't discussing your position.
We were disscussing item 6), which is my position.
> > > It is relevant precisely because it relates to interpretation. It
> > > further denigrates the accuracy of any interpretation precisely
> > > because interpretation *requires* cultual context.--something the
> > > Scots and English clearly did not have.
> >
> > But here you are again simply begging the question. Of course, if it
> > is your claim that the Confession authors could not help but interpret
> > because they lacked cultural context, then I note your disagreement
> > with them is not valid on grounds that you do not have their 17th
> > century cultural context, so your "attack" is not legitimate.
>
>
> Context is not crucial.
But according to your "everything is interpretation", that is simply
your interpretation.
> It merely illustrates the depth that the
> "divines" could have understood the material of the Bible. The crucial
> point is that they interpret.
But according to your "everything is interpretation", that is simply
your interpretation.
> Because they are interpreting, they are
> relying on observation which I note, by your own words, is
> "untenable."
They are only interpreting because you have presumed (circularly) that
"everything is interpretation".
Put another way, its only your interpretation that they are
"subjectively interpreting".
> > Of course, we're still back fundamentally to your circular argument,
> > which I note is not valid:
> >
> > Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>
> That is your assertion that begs the question. Its also irrelevant
> since humankind actually did the "measuring" in this instance.
But thats only your interpretation of it.
> > >> rather, it is a set
> > >> of creedal statements for the purpose of, you guessed it:
> >
> > >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
> >
> > > A summary *requires* interpretation. One cannot summarize anything
> > > without interpretation.
> >
> > Not true. Of course, following your logic, you are only reacting to
> > your interpretation of the Confession, and not the Confession.
>
> My intepretation of the Confession is irrelevant. What is relevant is
> that the Confession is an interpretation and therefore "untenable."
But your statement:
"the Confession is an interpretation"
is your interpretation. So you are begging the question.
> > But the cultural and sociological predicates you use to make your case
> > are not sufficient. You're simply begging the question.
>
> My case is not predicated on context so much as it is on the fact that
> the Confession is an interpretation of the Bible. Your point is moot.
But your statement that "the Confession is an interpretation of the
Bible" is your interpretation. Which is the point in question.
> > By assuming the very premise that is under consideration, which I
> > reject:
> >
> > Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>
> You can reject all you want. Its not relevant. Humankind, I.E. the
> "divines", did "measure" the Bible.
But according to your logic, thats merely your interpretation. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> On Mar 3, 9:02 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 2008, at 9:04 AM, scooter wrote:
> >
> > > None of this is relevant
> >
> > Its very relevant. You claim the Confession is "existential". The
> > Confession does not articulate "existential" premises, in fact, it
> > articulates premises that are considered to be against existentialism.
> > Of course, if you claim the Confession is existential because the
> > process used to produce it, then you are simply begging the question.
>
> I've been very clear. The Westminster Confession of Faith is not
> objectively true. In fact, in cannot even be used as a reference
> precisely because its an interpretation based on existential premises
> of observation. The "divines" employ the very existential method of
> interpreting the Bible. By your own words, The Confession is
> "untenable."
Your method is not correct. The strongest position, using your
method, that you can state is not:
* The Westminster Confession of Faith is not objectively true.
Rather, it is:
* My (scooter's) interpretation of the Westminster Confession of Faith
is not objectively true as I (scooter) interpret it.
> > I'm happy to note in response:
> >
> > Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>
> Begs the question and is irrelevant. The Confession draws its feeble
> "summary" from the Bible. Irrelevant because its an interpretation and
> more precisely because "humans" measured it.
Not correct. Using your "interpretation" logic, the best you can say is:
"My (scooter) interpretation of the Confession draws its feeble
"summary" from the Bible."
In making your "objective" assertion against the Confession, you
violate your own "every thing is interpretive" rule.
Regards,
Brock
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>On Mar 3, 12:22 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 9:13 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 3, 2008, at 9:25 AM, scooter wrote:
> > > > On Mar 2, 11:36 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Mar 1, 11:54 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> The aim of this post is to discredit Crock by
> > > >>> showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth and;
> > > >>> 2)
> > > >>> The Confession relies on the very existential premises that Crock so
> > > >>> despises thus exposing his monumental hypocracy.
>
> > > >> More accurately, my position is:
>
> > > >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> > > > More accurately, a summary reference *requires* interpretation.
> > > > Therfore, if, as you claim, the Bible is objectively true, the
> > > > interpretation is at best a distortion.
>
> > > But then, by continuing your own incorrect line of reasoning, your
> > > interpretation of my position is at best a distortion, which means
> > > you've not addressing my position.
>
> > We aren't discussing your position.
>
> We were disscussing item 6), which is my position.
Confession is a "summary" summarily makes it an interpretation.
Summaries could not exist without interpretation.
>
> > > > It is relevant precisely because it relates to interpretation. It
> > > > further denigrates the accuracy of any interpretation precisely
> > > > because interpretation *requires* cultual context.--something the
> > > > Scots and English clearly did not have.
>
> > > But here you are again simply begging the question. Of course, if it
> > > is your claim that the Confession authors could not help but interpret
> > > because they lacked cultural context, then I note your disagreement
> > > with them is not valid on grounds that you do not have their 17th
> > > century cultural context, so your "attack" is not legitimate.
>
> > Context is not crucial.
>
> But according to your "everything is interpretation", that is simply
> your interpretation.
is interpretation". I said The Confession is interpretation and I
provided example. Do you disagree that The Westminster Confession of
Faith is an interpretation of Biblical scripture? If so, provide an
example supporting your claim.
>
> > It merely illustrates the depth that the
> > "divines" could have understood the material of the Bible. The crucial
> > point is that they interpret.
>
> But according to your "everything is interpretation", that is simply
> your interpretation.
reflected in their writings. If you'd like to dispute that, go ahead.
Provide an example.
>
> > Because they are interpreting, they are
> > relying on observation which I note, by your own words, is
> > "untenable."
>
> They are only interpreting because you have presumed (circularly) that
> "everything is interpretation".
is interpretation". I said The Confession is interpretation and I
provided example.
>
> Put another way, its only your interpretation that they are
> "subjectively interpreting".
>
> > > Of course, we're still back fundamentally to your circular argument,
> > > which I note is not valid:
>
> > > Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>
> > That is your assertion that begs the question. Its also irrelevant
> > since humankind actually did the "measuring" in this instance.
>
> But thats only your interpretation of it.
standard. One for me (I am interpreting) and one for you and the
"divines" (you are not interpreting). That's rather the point of the
entire thread, Brock. You bash people for the same methods you use to
acquire knowledge. You're a hypocrit.
>
> > > >> rather, it is a set
> > > >> of creedal statements for the purpose of, you guessed it:
>
> > > >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> > > > A summary *requires* interpretation. One cannot summarize anything
> > > > without interpretation.
>
> > > Not true. Of course, following your logic, you are only reacting to
> > > your interpretation of the Confession, and not the Confession.
>
> > My intepretation of the Confession is irrelevant. What is relevant is
> > that the Confession is an interpretation and therefore "untenable."
>
> But your statement:
>
> "the Confession is an interpretation"
>
> is your interpretation. So you are begging the question.
to the same principles of observation. The only difference is, and the
point of the thread, that you are applying a double standard. I am
interpreting but niether you nor the Confession is. You can't have it
both ways, Brock. You want to say I am interpreting and then claim you
are not subject to the very same application of principles.
>
> > > But the cultural and sociological predicates you use to make your case
> > > are not sufficient. You're simply begging the question.
>
> > My case is not predicated on context so much as it is on the fact that
> > the Confession is an interpretation of the Bible. Your point is moot.
>
> But your statement that "the Confession is an interpretation of the
> Bible" is your interpretation. Which is the point in question.
to the same principles of observation. The only difference is, and the
point of the thread, that you are applying a double standard. I am
interpreting but niether you nor the Confession is. You can't have it
both ways, Brock. You want to say I am interpreting and then claim you
are not subject to the very same application of principles. You can't.
If I am interpreting, you are too.
>
> > > By assuming the very premise that is under consideration, which I
> > > reject:
>
> > > Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>
> > You can reject all you want. Its not relevant. Humankind, I.E. the
> > "divines", did "measure" the Bible.
>
> But according to your logic, thats merely your interpretation. :)
rather the point, Brock. You're a hypocrit.
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>On Mar 3, 12:16 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 9:02 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 3, 2008, at 9:04 AM, scooter wrote:
>
> > > > None of this is relevant
>
> > > Its very relevant. You claim the Confession is "existential". The
> > > Confession does not articulate "existential" premises, in fact, it
> > > articulates premises that are considered to be against existentialism.
> > > Of course, if you claim the Confession is existential because the
> > > process used to produce it, then you are simply begging the question.
>
> > I've been very clear. The Westminster Confession of Faith is not
> > objectively true. In fact, in cannot even be used as a reference
> > precisely because its an interpretation based on existential premises
> > of observation. The "divines" employ the very existential method of
> > interpreting the Bible. By your own words, The Confession is
> > "untenable."
>
> Your method is not correct. The strongest position, using your
> method, that you can state is not:
>
> * The Westminster Confession of Faith is not objectively true.
>
> Rather, it is:
>
> * My (scooter's) interpretation of the Westminster Confession of Faith
> is not objectively true as I (scooter) interpret it.
note, you condemn as "untenable." If you are going to claim I am
"interpreting" you are using the same principles to arrive at that
conclusion that you summarily condemn as "untenable."
>
> > > I'm happy to note in response:
>
> > > Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>
> > Begs the question and is irrelevant. The Confession draws its feeble
> > "summary" from the Bible. Irrelevant because its an interpretation and
> > more precisely because "humans" measured it.
>
> Not correct. Using your "interpretation" logic, the best you can say is:
>
> "My (scooter) interpretation of the Confession draws its feeble
> "summary" from the Bible."
>
> In making your "objective" assertion against the Confession, you
> violate your own "every thing is interpretive" rule.
such is not objectively true. In fact, that makes it a distortion of
what you believe to be objectively true (i.e., the Bible) -- and, I
provided example. Furthermore, I never claimed ny statement to be
objectivly true. That is your own interpretation which I note is
another mischaracterization of my position. Do you disagree that The
substantial proof that your claims are objectively true--as per your
epistomology. Do not use any methods of observation to come to your
conclusion as they will not be acceptable as per your "untenable"
remarks.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> You claim I am merely interpreting. You are applying a double
> standard. One for me (I am interpreting) and one for you and the
> "divines" (you are not interpreting). That's rather the point of the
> entire thread, Brock. You bash people for the same methods you use to
> acquire knowledge. You're a hypocrit.
No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
> > > > >> rather, it is a set
> > > > >> of creedal statements for the purpose of, you guessed it:
> >
> > > > >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > > > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
> >
> > > > > A summary *requires* interpretation. One cannot summarize anything
> > > > > without interpretation.
> >
> > > > Not true. Of course, following your logic, you are only reacting to
> > > > your interpretation of the Confession, and not the Confession.
> >
> > > My intepretation of the Confession is irrelevant. What is relevant is
> > > that the Confession is an interpretation and therefore "untenable."
> >
> > But your statement:
> >
> > "the Confession is an interpretation"
> >
> > is your interpretation. So you are begging the question.
>
> If you're going to claim I am interpreting, then you are subscribing
> to the same principles of observation. The only difference is, and the
> point of the thread, that you are applying a double standard. I am
> interpreting but niether you nor the Confession is. You can't have it
> both ways, Brock. You want to say I am interpreting and then claim you
> are not subject to the very same application of principles.
No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
> > > > But the cultural and sociological predicates you use to make your case
> > > > are not sufficient. You're simply begging the question.
> >
> > > My case is not predicated on context so much as it is on the fact that
> > > the Confession is an interpretation of the Bible. Your point is moot.
> >
> > But your statement that "the Confession is an interpretation of the
> > Bible" is your interpretation. Which is the point in question.
>
>
> If you're going to claim I am interpreting, then you are subscribing
> to the same principles of observation. The only difference is, and the
> point of the thread, that you are applying a double standard. I am
> interpreting but niether you nor the Confession is. You can't have it
> both ways, Brock. You want to say I am interpreting and then claim you
> are not subject to the very same application of principles. You can't.
> If I am interpreting, you are too.
No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
> > > > By assuming the very premise that is under consideration, which I
> > > > reject:
> >
> > > > Humankind is not the measure of all things.
> >
> > > You can reject all you want. Its not relevant. Humankind, I.E. the
> > > "divines", did "measure" the Bible.
> >
> > But according to your logic, thats merely your interpretation. :)
>
> According to yours as well. Except when it applies to you. Thats
> rather the point, Brock. You're a hypocrit.
No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 3, 9:13 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 3, 2008, at 9:25 AM, scooter wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 2, 11:36 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> On Mar 1, 11:54 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >>> The aim of this post is to discredit Crock by
> > > > >>> showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth and;
> > > > >>> 2)
> > > > >>> The Confession relies on the very existential premises that Crock so
> > > > >>> despises thus exposing his monumental hypocracy.
> >
> > > > >> More accurately, my position is:
> >
> > > > >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > > > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
> >
> > > > > More accurately, a summary reference *requires* interpretation.
> > > > > Therfore, if, as you claim, the Bible is objectively true, the
> > > > > interpretation is at best a distortion.
> >
> > > > But then, by continuing your own incorrect line of reasoning, your
> > > > interpretation of my position is at best a distortion, which means
> > > > you've not addressing my position.
> >
> > > We aren't discussing your position.
> >
> > We were disscussing item 6), which is my position.
>
> We already laid to rest your position.
I don't think so.
> > > > But here you are again simply begging the question. Of course, if it
> > > > is your claim that the Confession authors could not help but interpret
> > > > because they lacked cultural context, then I note your disagreement
> > > > with them is not valid on grounds that you do not have their 17th
> > > > century cultural context, so your "attack" is not legitimate.
> >
> > > Context is not crucial.
> >
> > But according to your "everything is interpretation", that is simply
> > your interpretation.
>
> Thats a mischaracterization of my position. I did not say "everything
> is interpretation". I said The Confession is interpretation and I
> provided example. Do you disagree that The Westminster Confession of
> Faith is an interpretation of Biblical scripture? If so, provide an
> example supporting your claim.
I simply noted that you disqualified the Confession because it was a
17th century document, and not written from 1st century culture and
context. Following your (incorrect) logic, it also presumes that your
interpretation of the Confession is not valid, because you do not have
17th century culture and context.
Of course the bigger issue, of culture and context is simply that your
simplistic "17th century is not the 1st century" is an example of an
excluded middle. You simply create an arbitrary categorization, one
that excludes the possibility that:
6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
> > But according to your "everything is interpretation", that is simply
> > your interpretation.
>
> That's a mischaracterization. They have intepreted the Bible and it is
> reflected in their writings. If you'd like to dispute that, go ahead.
> Provide an example.
Excluded middle. See above.
> > > Because they are interpreting, they are
> > > relying on observation which I note, by your own words, is
> > > "untenable."
> >
> > They are only interpreting because you have presumed (circularly) that
> > "everything is interpretation".
>
> That's a mischaracterization of my position. I did not say "everything
> is interpretation". I said The Confession is interpretation and I
> provided example.
You said:
> More accurately, a summary reference *requires* interpretation.
and from that concluded that because of the presence of "interpretation":
> The Westminster Confession of Faith is not objectively true.
But that (by the law of the excluded middle) is simply a personal
categorization you presume. Any summary reference, by your mis
application, can be disqualified. For example, a summary reference
for history that mentions:
* Christopher Columbus received financial support from the King and
Queen of Spain[1]
by your logic, is interpreted and cannot be objectively true. But
that is invalid.
> > > That is your assertion that begs the question. Its also irrelevant
> > > since humankind actually did the "measuring" in this instance.
> >
> > But thats only your interpretation of it.
>
> You claim I am merely interpreting. You are applying a double
> standard. One for me (I am interpreting) and one for you and the
> "divines" (you are not interpreting). That's rather the point of the
> entire thread, Brock. You bash people for the same methods you use to
> acquire knowledge. You're a hypocrit.
No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
> > > > >> rather, it is a set
> > > > >> of creedal statements for the purpose of, you guessed it:
> >
> > > > >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > > > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
> >
> > > > > A summary *requires* interpretation. One cannot summarize anything
> > > > > without interpretation.
> >
> > > > Not true. Of course, following your logic, you are only reacting to
> > > > your interpretation of the Confession, and not the Confession.
> >
> > > My intepretation of the Confession is irrelevant. What is relevant is
> > > that the Confession is an interpretation and therefore "untenable."
See excluded middle discussion above.
> >
> > But your statement:
> >
> > "the Confession is an interpretation"
> >
> > is your interpretation. So you are begging the question.
>
> If you're going to claim I am interpreting, then you are subscribing
> to the same principles of observation. The only difference is, and the
> point of the thread, that you are applying a double standard. I am
> interpreting but niether you nor the Confession is. You can't have it
> both ways, Brock. You want to say I am interpreting and then claim you
> are not subject to the very same application of principles.
No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
> > > > But the cultural and sociological predicates you use to make your case
> > > > are not sufficient. You're simply begging the question.
> >
> > > My case is not predicated on context so much as it is on the fact that
> > > the Confession is an interpretation of the Bible. Your point is moot.
> >
> > But your statement that "the Confession is an interpretation of the
> > Bible" is your interpretation. Which is the point in question.
>
>
> If you're going to claim I am interpreting, then you are subscribing
> to the same principles of observation. The only difference is, and the
> point of the thread, that you are applying a double standard. I am
> interpreting but niether you nor the Confession is. You can't have it
> both ways, Brock. You want to say I am interpreting and then claim you
> are not subject to the very same application of principles. You can't.
> If I am interpreting, you are too.
No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
> > > > By assuming the very premise that is under consideration, which I
> > > > reject:
> >
> > > > Humankind is not the measure of all things.
> >
> > > You can reject all you want. Its not relevant. Humankind, I.E. the
> > > "divines", did "measure" the Bible.
> >
> > But according to your logic, thats merely your interpretation. :)
>
> According to yours as well. Except when it applies to you. Thats
> rather the point, Brock. You're a hypocrit.
No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
Regards,
Brock
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#Funding_campaign
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>On Mar 3, 2:27 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You claim I am merely interpreting. You are applying a double
> > standard. One for me (I am interpreting) and one for you and the
> > "divines" (you are not interpreting). That's rather the point of the
> > entire thread, Brock. You bash people for the same methods you use to
> > acquire knowledge. You're a hypocrit.
>
> No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
> conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
Yet, you are applying those very principles. That's the point, Brock.
You can't have it both ways. If you claim I am "interpreting" you are
using the same logic that I am employing. Except, you do not hold
yourself nor The Confession to those standards. That makes you a
hypocrit.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > >> rather, it is a set
> > > > > >> of creedal statements for the purpose of, you guessed it:
>
> > > > > >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > > > > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> > > > > > A summary *requires* interpretation. One cannot summarize anything
> > > > > > without interpretation.
>
> > > > > Not true. Of course, following your logic, you are only reacting to
> > > > > your interpretation of the Confession, and not the Confession.
existential logic that you claim you do not employ. Follow your own
logic. If it is sound it, will stand on its own merits. Nevertheless,
the subject is not my interpretation of the Confession, its The
Confession's interpretation of the Bible. Of course, I note I have
already established that The Westminster Confession is precisely that--
an interpretation. That isn't an interpretation--its a mattert of
historical fact. Hence, Calvinism, Episcopalianism, Catholicism etc.
ad nauseum. If you disagree these are interpretations then you are
claiming they are all objectively true--which I note, they cannot be
as per the law of non-contradiction.
Furthermore, if a summary requires no interpretation, then it should
be an easy matter for you to provide an example of a summary that is
not an interpretation.
>
> > > > My intepretation of the Confession is irrelevant. What is relevant is
> > > > that the Confession is an interpretation and therefore "untenable."
>
> > > But your statement:
>
> > > "the Confession is an interpretation"
>
> > > is your interpretation. So you are begging the question.
>
> > If you're going to claim I am interpreting, then you are subscribing
> > to the same principles of observation. The only difference is, and the
> > point of the thread, that you are applying a double standard. I am
> > interpreting but niether you nor the Confession is. You can't have it
> > both ways, Brock. You want to say I am interpreting and then claim you
> > are not subject to the very same application of principles.
>
> No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
> conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
reference for the propositional truths of the Bible." A summary is a
paring down of text for the purposes of brevity. While it may be true
that the authors wanted to keep the Biblical propositions intact, it
still requires interpretation whether you like it or not.
Finally, you claim not to subscribe to those premises I use, yet you
are using them here. That's a double standard and makes you a
hypocrit.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > But the cultural and sociological predicates you use to make your case
> > > > > are not sufficient. You're simply begging the question.
>
> > > > My case is not predicated on context so much as it is on the fact that
> > > > the Confession is an interpretation of the Bible. Your point is moot.
>
> > > But your statement that "the Confession is an interpretation of the
> > > Bible" is your interpretation. Which is the point in question.
>
> > If you're going to claim I am interpreting, then you are subscribing
> > to the same principles of observation. The only difference is, and the
> > point of the thread, that you are applying a double standard. I am
> > interpreting but niether you nor the Confession is. You can't have it
> > both ways, Brock. You want to say I am interpreting and then claim you
> > are not subject to the very same application of principles. You can't.
> > If I am interpreting, you are too.
>
> No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
> conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
the process using a double standard. It is perfectly reasonable to say
that I am interpreting The Confession. But, in doing so you are using
the very same methods of argumentation I am when I say The Confession
is interpretation. You cannot then say my method is wrong but yours is
correct. That's a double standard.
>
> > > > > By assuming the very premise that is under consideration, which I
> > > > > reject:
>
> > > > > Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>
> > > > You can reject all you want. Its not relevant. Humankind, I.E. the
> > > > "divines", did "measure" the Bible.
>
> > > But according to your logic, thats merely your interpretation. :)
>
> > According to yours as well. Except when it applies to you. Thats
> > rather the point, Brock. You're a hypocrit.
>
> No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
> conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
determine that my premises of observation are incorrect and in the
process using a double standard. It is perfectly reasonable to say
that I am interpreting The Confession. But, in doing so you are using
the very same methods of argumentation I am when I say The Confession
is interpretation. You cannot then say my method is wrong but yours is
correct. That's a double standard.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>
>
>
> > >>> What does this all mean? It means Brock is a hypocritical
> > >>> existentialist who bashes others for using the same skills of
> > >>> observation he uses. I.E., he's an asshole.
>
> > >> I think it means:
>
> > >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> > > Or more accurately, a summary is an interpretation of an already
> > > written document.
>
> > Essence precedes existence.
>
> Irrelevant
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> On Mar 3, 2:27 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 2:17 PM, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > You claim I am merely interpreting. You are applying a double
> > > standard. One for me (I am interpreting) and one for you and the
> > > "divines" (you are not interpreting). That's rather the point of the
> > > entire thread, Brock. You bash people for the same methods you use to
> > > acquire knowledge. You're a hypocrit.
> >
> > No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
> > conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
>
> You claim not to subscribe to the reasoning of existentialism, Brock.
> Yet, you are applying those very principles.
I don't believe so.
> That's the point, Brock.
> You can't have it both ways. If you claim I am "interpreting" you are
> using the same logic that I am employing.
No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
> Except, you do not hold
> yourself nor The Confession to those standards. That makes you a
> hypocrit.
But to assert this, you assume the very premises that you wish to show:
* The Confession is a summary
* All summarys are interpretations
* All interpretations are subjective.
* The Confession of Faith is not objective truth
The sequence is not valid. :)
Regards,
Brock
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>On Mar 3, 2:23 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > But here you are again simply begging the question. Of course, if it
> > > > > is your claim that the Confession authors could not help but interpret
> > > > > because they lacked cultural context, then I note your disagreement
> > > > > with them is not valid on grounds that you do not have their 17th
> > > > > century cultural context, so your "attack" is not legitimate.
>
> > > > Context is not crucial.
>
> > > But according to your "everything is interpretation", that is simply
> > > your interpretation.
>
> > Thats a mischaracterization of my position. I did not say "everything
> > is interpretation". I said The Confession is interpretation and I
> > provided example. Do you disagree that The Westminster Confession of
> > Faith is an interpretation of Biblical scripture? If so, provide an
> > example supporting your claim.
>
> I simply noted that you disqualified the Confession because it was a
> 17th century document, and not written from 1st century culture and
> context. Following your (incorrect) logic, it also presumes that your
> interpretation of the Confession is not valid, because you do not have
> 17th century culture and context.
Confession. I said it could not possibly be objectivelt true. I said
the fact that its a summary makes it demostrably true that its been
read and condensed. In doing so, it requires interpretation. I said
that another indicater is the fact that there are more than one
interpretations such as Episcopalian, Catholicism etc. ad nauseum. I
provided an example of a chapter from the Confession that has clear
and unambiguous references to Genesis 1. All these facts are
evidenciary of the fact that the Confession is an interpretation. That
makes it subjective whether you like it or not.
>
> Of course the bigger issue, of culture and context is simply that your
> simplistic "17th century is not the 1st century" is an example of an
> excluded middle. You simply create an arbitrary categorization, one
> that excludes the possibility that:
and make a big deal of it to distract. It won't work. Your bloviating
is irrelevant.
>
> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
I note The Confession was a "reformation" of beliefs. That's why it
was called the "reformation", Brock. That makes it subjective.
>
> > > But according to your "everything is interpretation", that is simply
> > > your interpretation.
>
> > That's a mischaracterization. They have intepreted the Bible and it is
> > reflected in their writings. If you'd like to dispute that, go ahead.
> > Provide an example.
>
> Excluded middle. See above.
>
> > > > Because they are interpreting, they are
> > > > relying on observation which I note, by your own words, is
> > > > "untenable."
>
> > > They are only interpreting because you have presumed (circularly) that
> > > "everything is interpretation".
>
> > That's a mischaracterization of my position. I did not say "everything
> > is interpretation". I said The Confession is interpretation and I
> > provided example.
>
> You said:
>
> > More accurately, a summary reference *requires* interpretation.
>
> and from that concluded that because of the presence of "interpretation":
>
> > The Westminster Confession of Faith is not objectively true.
>
> But that (by the law of the excluded middle) is simply a personal
> categorization you presume. Any summary reference, by your mis
> application, can be disqualified. For example, a summary reference
> for history that mentions:
>
> * Christopher Columbus received financial support from the King and
> Queen of Spain[1]
>
> by your logic, is interpreted and cannot be objectively true. But
> that is invalid.
Columbus nor any facts surrounding his historical path. Furthermore,
no one disputes that particular fact. That doesn't make it
"objectively true", but it does lend an extremly high truth value to
its veracity. Getting back on point from your misdirection, The
Confession IS an interpretation as has been demonstrably shown.
However, your example exposes your double standard.
You are using observed evidence to support a conclusion that Columbus
recieved financial support from the King and Queen of Spain. A method
you routinely denounce as "untenable", suddenly is valid. You are now
claiming that observation is a valid means for discovering truth while
simultaneously saying the observation that The Confession was a
"reformation" document replacing the episcopalian interpretation with
Calvinism is invalid [1]. That's a double standard and therefore I do
not accept your method of argumentation.
Quoting:
"For this reason, as a condition for entering into the alliance with
England, the Scottish Parliament formed the Solemn League and Covenant
with the English Parliament, which meant that the Church of England
would abandon episcopalianism and consistently adhere to Calvinistic
standards of doctrine and worship. The Confession and Catechisms were
produced in order to secure the help of the Scots against the
king."[1]
>
> > > > That is your assertion that begs the question. Its also irrelevant
> > > > since humankind actually did the "measuring" in this instance.
>
> > > But thats only your interpretation of it.
>
> > You claim I am merely interpreting. You are applying a double
> > standard. One for me (I am interpreting) and one for you and the
> > "divines" (you are not interpreting). That's rather the point of the
> > entire thread, Brock. You bash people for the same methods you use to
> > acquire knowledge. You're a hypocrit.
>
> No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
> conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
using a double standard. It is perfectly reasonable to say that I am
interpreting The Confession. But, in doing so you are using the very
same methods of argumentation I am when I say The Confession is
interpretation. You cannot then say my method is wrong but yours is
correct. That's a double standard.
>
> > > > > >> of creedal statements for the purpose of, you guessed it:
>
> > > > > >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > > > > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> > > > > > A summary *requires* interpretation. One cannot summarize anything
> > > > > > without interpretation.
>
> > > > > Not true. Of course, following your logic, you are only reacting to
> > > > > your interpretation of the Confession, and not the Confession.
>
> > > > My intepretation of the Confession is irrelevant. What is relevant is
> > > > that the Confession is an interpretation and therefore "untenable."
>
> See excluded middle discussion above.
>
>
>
> > > But your statement:
>
> > > "the Confession is an interpretation"
>
> > > is your interpretation. So you are begging the question.
>
> > If you're going to claim I am interpreting, then you are subscribing
> > to the same principles of observation. The only difference is, and the
> > point of the thread, that you are applying a double standard. I am
> > interpreting but niether you nor the Confession is. You can't have it
> > both ways, Brock. You want to say I am interpreting and then claim you
> > are not subject to the very same application of principles.
>
> No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
> conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
say
that I am interpreting The Confession. But, in doing so you are using
the very same methods of argumentation I am when I say The Confession
is interpretation. You cannot then say my method is wrong but yours
is
correct. That's a double standard.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > are not sufficient. You're simply begging the question.
>
> > > > My case is not predicated on context so much as it is on the fact that
> > > > the Confession is an interpretation of the Bible. Your point is moot.
>
> > > But your statement that "the Confession is an interpretation of the
> > > Bible" is your interpretation. Which is the point in question.
>
> > If you're going to claim I am interpreting, then you are subscribing
> > to the same principles of observation. The only difference is, and the
> > point of the thread, that you are applying a double standard. I am
> > interpreting but niether you nor the Confession is. You can't have it
> > both ways, Brock. You want to say I am interpreting and then claim you
> > are not subject to the very same application of principles. You can't.
> > If I am interpreting, you are too.
>
> No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
> conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
say
that I am interpreting The Confession. But, in doing so you are using
the very same methods of argumentation I am when I say The Confession
is interpretation. You cannot then say my method is wrong but yours
is
correct. That's a double standard.
>
> > > > > reject:
>
> > > > > Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>
> > > > You can reject all you want. Its not relevant. Humankind, I.E. the
> > > > "divines", did "measure" the Bible.
>
> > > But according to your logic, thats merely your interpretation. :)
>
> > According to yours as well. Except when it applies to you. Thats
> > rather the point, Brock. You're a hypocrit.
>
> No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
> conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
say
that I am interpreting The Confession. But, in doing so you are using
the very same methods of argumentation I am when I say The Confession
is interpretation. You cannot then say my method is wrong but yours
is
correct. That's a double standard.
>
> Brock
>
> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#Funding_campaign- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dag Yo
<sir_roko2@yahoo.com>now.
>
> read more »
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 3, 9:26 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I think it means:
>
> > 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> Or more accurately, a summary is an interpretation of an already
> written document.
6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
Brock
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>Additions:
-Ask Brock how he knows he has 5 fingers on his right hand, but that I
cannot determine whether or not a chair exists.
-Ask Brock how he can distinguish between input from the Holy Spirit
and his own brain.
-Ask Brock how he learned about Jesus.
All of these require existential answers, which means according to his
own assertions, make his epistemology untenable. Of course, I don't
share those opinions, but his own arguments are self-contradictory and
therefore invalid without even referencing the arguments themselves.
I gave up on obtaining information from Brock. He's just here to
listen to the sound of his own voice.
On Mar 1, 10:54 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As we all know, Crock of Shit Organ frequently relies on this document
> and presents it as "objective truth" Too, Crock likes to dismiss all
> other argumentation as invalid because he says they rely on
> The Confession relies on the very existential premises that Crock so
> despises thus exposing his monumental hypocracy.
>
> one's easy. The Confession cannot be "objectively true" because it is
> an interpretation of the Bible. Written in the mid 17th century, it is
> an interpretation that is not even in the social or cultural context
> of 1st century Middle East. Rather, it was written by so-called
> "Divines" who were, in fact, a bunch of Puritan clergy for the
> purposes of reforming The Church of England. It was the abolition of
> Episcopalianism for Calvainism in the Church of England. Basically,
> that means favoring one interpretation (Calvinism) over another
> (Episcopalian). Niether of which is objectively true for the fact that
> they are "intepratations."
>
> if one believes the "propositions of Bible are objectivly true" (which
> they are not), the Confession is an interpretation of the Bible and
> thus a distortion of percieved "objective truth" (begs the question as
> to why there is a need for such a document if the Bible is already
> "objectively true"). As example of the Confession's methodology, I'd
>
> "I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the
> manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness,
> in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all
> things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six
> days, and all very good."[1]
> End Quote
>
> That is an interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 and therefore a
> distortion of the perceived "objective truth" of the Bible--the "word
> Brock is fond of repeating the phrase "existentialism is untenable."
> Unfortunately for Brock, existentialism is precisely what the
> Westminster Confession relied on in RE-forming the Church of England
> (emphasis mine). As a rhetorical question, why would one need a
> reformation of "objective truth"? Does objective truth need
> "reforming?" Clearly, not. Yet, the synods are constantly revising and
> reforming their own document. For example, The Association of Reformed
> Presbyterian Church states in reference to the Westminster Confession
> of Faith this qualification:
>
> "Agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster as the same is
> received by the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church including
> amendments approved by the General Synods of 1959, 1976, 1984, and
> 2001."
>
> It is strange "objective truth" would need so many amendments and
> revisions. Unless, of course, it is not objective truth. Rather, it is
> the existential interpretation of rambling morons who think they
> "know" objective truth."
>
> existentialist who bashes others for using the same skills of
> observation he uses. I.E., he's an asshole.
>
> [2]http://www.arpsynod.org/confcont.html
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>>
> > The aim of this post is to discredit Crock by
> > showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth and; 2)
> > The Confession relies on the very existential premises that Crock so
> > despises thus exposing his monumental hypocracy.
>
>
> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> > one's easy. The Confession cannot be "objectively true" because it is
> > an interpretation of the Bible. Written in the mid 17th century, it is
> > an interpretation that is not even in the social or cultural context
> > of 1st century Middle East. Rather, it was written by so-called
> > "Divines" who were, in fact, a bunch of Puritan clergy for the
> > purposes of reforming The Church of England. It was the abolition of
> > Episcopalianism for Calvainism in the Church of England. Basically,
> > that means favoring one interpretation (Calvinism) over another
> > (Episcopalian). Niether of which is objectively true for the fact that
> > they are "intepratations."
>
>
> 1) it is written in the mid 17th century and not the 1st century
> 2) it is an interpretation of the Bible
> 3) it was written by a group of people favoring one interpretation
> over another
>
> Confession is not an interpretation of the Bible, rather, it is a set
>
> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> beliefs of that day.
Your argument is therefore self-defeating.
> Though it is fair to say the Confession was
> meant to voice the beliefs of a group of people in response to
> another, it is not sufficient to explain it. A much more satisfying
> historical account behind the "History of the Westminster Assembly of
> Divines"[1] is available and quite fun to read. Limiting the document
> to merely the sociological impact the Confession had is to beg the
> question by presuming the premise.
>
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Mar 3, 9:44 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 9:02 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 2008, at 9:04 AM, scooter wrote:
>
> > > None of this is relevant
>
> > Its very relevant. You claim the Confession is "existential". The
> > Confession does not articulate "existential" premises, in fact, it
> > articulates premises that are considered to be against existentialism.
> > Of course, if you claim the Confession is existential because the
> > process used to produce it, then you are simply begging the question.
>
> I've been very clear. The Westminster Confession of Faith is not
> objectively true.
true, then that person is delusional, not someone with a sound
epistemology.
bonfly
<anubis2@aapt.net.au>passing Hans, watchmon knees and daisiatic whooms. (Deidzoeb never
welcome)
>
> read more »
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>On Mar 3, 10:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great post, Scooter ;)
Thanks ;)
>
> Additions:
>
> -Ask Brock how he knows he has 5 fingers on his right hand, but that I
> cannot determine whether or not a chair exists.
> -Ask Brock how he can distinguish between input from the Holy Spirit
> and his own brain.
> -Ask Brock how he learned about Jesus.
>
> All of these require existential answers, which means according to his
> own assertions, make his epistemology untenable. Of course, I don't
> share those opinions, but his own arguments are self-contradictory and
> therefore invalid without even referencing the arguments themselves.
>
> I gave up on obtaining information from Brock. He's just here to
> listen to the sound of his own voice.
Brock: "No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing
using a double standard. It is perfectly reasonable to say that I am
interpreting The Confession. But, in doing so you are using the very
same methods of argumentation I am when I say The Confession is
"untenable"). You cannot then say my method is wrong but yours is
Basically, he wants to use existentialism to argue against my point
and then condemn my point by arguing existentialism is "untenable." He
wants his cake and eat it too.
Having said that, I'm not sure if Brock is purposely being deceitful
or if he is in denial and/or delusional as you suggest.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>interact with this "God" or the "Holy Spirit", he's got to use his
subjectivity, and in which case he's cooked by his own arguments. It's
a self-contradiction.
>
> Having said that, I'm not sure if Brock is purposely being deceitful
> or if he is in denial and/or delusional as you suggest.
never answers the question. He's not grotesquely stupid, so frankly
we're only left with him being deliberately dishonest. But he
considers himself to be the epitome of moral action on this board
since he doesn't say "fuck", and thinks it's okay to be dishonest as
long as you're dishonest for Jesus.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>I think you abuse the label "interpretation" in making your response. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>So you say ... ;0
(of course, you understand if I don't use you as a source for what I'm
going to say )
> Having said that, I'm not sure if Brock is purposely being deceitful
> or if he is in denial and/or delusional as you suggest.
Or is sincerely and honestly convinced that he is correct. (That would
be my guess)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 4, 2008, at 9:33 PM, rappoccio wrote:
> On Mar 4, 12:22 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Basically, he wants to use existentialism to argue against my point
>> and then condemn my point by arguing existentialism is "untenable." He
>> wants his cake and eat it too.
>
> Exactly. He can't admit that at all. He simply can't see that to
> interact with this "God" or the "Holy Spirit", he's got to use his
> subjectivity, and in which case he's cooked by his own arguments. It's
> a self-contradiction.
I think he sees a lot more than you give him credit for here. :)
>> Having said that, I'm not sure if Brock is purposely being deceitful
>> or if he is in denial and/or delusional as you suggest.
>
> I think he knows it contradicts his epistemology, which is why he
> never answers the question. He's not grotesquely stupid, so frankly
> we're only left with him being deliberately dishonest. But he
> considers himself to be the epitome of moral action on this board
> since he doesn't say "fuck", and thinks it's okay to be dishonest as
> long as you're dishonest for Jesus.
I don't think he thinks that. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>Well, I do not assent. :)
>> I simply noted that you disqualified the Confession because it was a
>> 17th century document, and not written from 1st century culture and
>> context. Following your (incorrect) logic, it also presumes that your
>> interpretation of the Confession is not valid, because you do not have
>> 17th century culture and context.
>
> That's another mischaraterization. I did not "disqualify" the
> Confession. I said it could not possibly be objectivelt true. I said
> the fact that its a summary makes it demostrably true that its been
> read and condensed. In doing so, it requires interpretation. I said
> that another indicater is the fact that there are more than one
> interpretations such as Episcopalian, Catholicism etc. ad nauseum. I
> provided an example of a chapter from the Confession that has clear
> and unambiguous references to Genesis 1. All these facts are
> evidenciary of the fact that the Confession is an interpretation. That
> makes it subjective whether you like it or not.
I believe you are a bit liberal in your labeling and usage of terms.
In your rush to label the Confession as subjective, you've
oversimplified significantly.
>> Of course the bigger issue, of culture and context is simply that your
>> simplistic "17th century is not the 1st century" is an example of an
>> excluded middle. You simply create an arbitrary categorization, one
>> that excludes the possibility that:
>
> Again, the cultural disconnect is not what's important. You can try
> and make a big deal of it to distract. It won't work. Your bloviating
> is irrelevant.
It was your position that the cultural differences were important.
>> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
>> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> Or, more accurately stated: "The Westminster Confession of Faith
> contains useful summary references to many of the propositional truths
> of the Bible from a Calvinistic point of view."
Well, it is as useful as a label can be. But not the whole story.
> I note The Confession was a "reformation" of beliefs. That's why it
> was called the "reformation", Brock. That makes it subjective.
No, it was called the "reformation" because it was and is a useful
historical catagorization.
Famous reformations include[1]:
* Protestant Reformation, an attempt by Martin Luther to reform the
Church that resulted in a schism, and grew into a wider movement.
* English Reformation, series of events in sixteenth-century England by
which the church in England broke away from the authority of the Pope
and the Roman Catholic Church
* Radical Reformation, an Anabaptist movement concurrent with the
Protestant Reformation.
* Counter-Reformation, a Catholic response to the Protestant
Reformation.
But in fact, thats simply a useful label we have to group the
historical actions of a group that we reference in a historical
context. So the actual objective truth is not affected by the
subjective nature you assign to a label.
>>> > But according to your "everything is interpretation", that is
>>> simply
>>> > your interpretation.
>>
>>> That's a mischaracterization. They have intepreted the Bible and it
>>> is
>>> reflected in their writings. If you'd like to dispute that, go
>>> ahead.
>>> Provide an example.
>>
>> Excluded middle. See above.
>
> See above why this is irrelevant.
You've confused subjective social, religious and political events,
people and concepts with the objective things they refer to.
No it doesn't.
> You are using observed evidence to support a conclusion that Columbus
> recieved financial support from the King and Queen of Spain. A method
> you routinely denounce as "untenable", suddenly is valid.
You mischaracterize my statements. The objective truth of
* Christopher Columbus received financial support from the King and
Queen of Spain
is not established by your disputation or lack of disputation of the
premise. It is an objective statement and a summary that contained it
would be objectively true with respect to that proposition.
> You are now
> claiming that observation is a valid means for discovering truth
I never said it wasn't. I said it has important and specific
limitations. And I listed many of those limitations:
3) Observation has very specific limitations as an epistemology
4) Finite observations over an arbitrarily unbounded event space cannot
establish objective truth
7) Scientific consensus is neither science nor consensus
9) Observation is not sufficient to establish normative behavior
10) As sensory perceptions are not objectively certain, relying on them
to establish objective truth is not tenable.
However, I note that when observation is applied outside of its valid
scope, the resulting epistemology is not tenable.
> while
> simultaneously saying the observation that The Confession was a
> "reformation" document replacing the episcopalian interpretation with
> Calvinism is invalid [1]. That's a double standard and therefore I do
> not accept your method of argumentation.
We're back to your abuse of sociological labels here.
>>> > > That is your assertion that begs the question. Its also
>>> irrelevant
>>> > > since humankind actually did the "measuring" in this instance.
>>
>>> > But thats only your interpretation of it.
>>
>>> You claim I am merely interpreting. You are applying a double
>>> standard. One for me (I am interpreting) and one for you and the
>>> "divines" (you are not interpreting). That's rather the point of the
>>> entire thread, Brock. You bash people for the same methods you use
>>> to
>>> acquire knowledge. You're a hypocrit.
>>
>> No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
>> conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
>
> "I am (you are) applying" existential premises and in the process
> using a double standard. It is perfectly reasonable to say that I am
> interpreting The Confession. But, in doing so you are using the very
> same methods of argumentation I am when I say The Confession is
> interpretation. You cannot then say my method is wrong but yours is
> correct. That's a double standard.
We're back to your abuse of sociological labels here.
>>> If you're going to claim I am interpreting, then you are subscribing
>>> to the same principles of observation. The only difference is, and
>>> the
>>> point of the thread, that you are applying a double standard. I am
>>> interpreting but niether you nor the Confession is. You can't have
>>> it
>>> both ways, Brock. You want to say I am interpreting and then claim
>>> you
>>> are not subject to the very same application of principles.
>>
>> No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
>> conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
>
> "I am (you are) applying" existential premises (scooter's) and in
> the process using a double standard. It is perfectly reasonable to
> say
> that I am interpreting The Confession. But, in doing so you are using
> the very same methods of argumentation I am when I say The Confession
> is interpretation. You cannot then say my method is wrong but yours
> is
> correct. That's a double standard.
Your analysis is not accurate. I do not presume nor accept existential
premises as the basis for my epistemology[2].
No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
Regards,
Brock
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation Reformation
(disambiguation)
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle
student13
<pairamblr@gmail.com>Lol
poor, how can " I " think " he does or he doesn't " ?
like rappoccio says, he knows exactly what he does. But then he is
also
afraid of " that hell " so prefer to take a safe stand . By chance
if there is no hell (or heaven)
he is anyway not a looser. And if there is, then he has * always been
standing for "Bible" along with
its interpretation of WMC "
poor God, any one can take Him for a ride ???
cheers
enjoy
st13
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 5, 2008, at 3:05 AM, student13 wrote:
> Brock : " I don't think *he* thinks that :) "
>
> Lol
>
> poor, how can " I " think " he does or he doesn't " ?
Not an interesting question to me. :)
> like rappoccio says, he knows exactly what he does. But then he is
> also
> afraid of " that hell " so prefer to take a safe stand . By chance
> if there is no hell (or heaven)
> he is anyway not a looser.
Its not a pascal's wager item for me. My Lord knows everything about
me, and my reasons for doing something. Its not just the "carrot" (His
benefits) or "stick" (His punishments) that motivate:
Its love. :))
> And if there is, then he has * always been
> standing for "Bible" along with
> its interpretation of WMC "
> poor God, any one can take Him for a ride ???
Do you know what you have when you move a pile of sand from point A to
point B?
Hint: Its still a pile of sand. :)
Regards,
Brock
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>>
> >> I simply noted that you disqualified the Confession because it was a
> >> 17th century document, and not written from 1st century culture and
> >> context. Following your (incorrect) logic, it also presumes that your
> >> interpretation of the Confession is not valid, because you do not have
> >> 17th century culture and context.
>
> > That's another mischaraterization. I did not "disqualify" the
> > Confession. I said it could not possibly be objectivelt true. I said
> > the fact that its a summary makes it demostrably true that its been
> > read and condensed. In doing so, it requires interpretation. I said
> > that another indicater is the fact that there are more than one
> > interpretations such as Episcopalian, Catholicism etc. ad nauseum. I
> > provided an example of a chapter from the Confession that has clear
> > and unambiguous references to Genesis 1. All these facts are
> > evidenciary of the fact that the Confession is an interpretation. That
> > makes it subjective whether you like it or not.
>
> I believe you are a bit liberal in your labeling and usage of terms.
> In your rush to label the Confession as subjective, you've
> oversimplified significantly.
>
> >> Of course the bigger issue, of culture and context is simply that your
> >> simplistic "17th century is not the 1st century" is an example of an
> >> excluded middle. You simply create an arbitrary categorization, one
> >> that excludes the possibility that:
>
> > Again, the cultural disconnect is not what's important. You can try
> > and make a big deal of it to distract. It won't work. Your bloviating
> > is irrelevant.
>
> It was your position that the cultural differences were important.
Confession.
>
> >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> > Or, more accurately stated: "The Westminster Confession of Faith
> > contains useful summary references to many of the propositional truths
> > of the Bible from a Calvinistic point of view."
>
> Well, it is as useful as a label can be. But not the whole story.
>
> > I note The Confession was a "reformation" of beliefs. That's why it
> > was called the "reformation", Brock. That makes it subjective.
>
> No, it was called the "reformation" because it was and is a useful
> historical catagorization.
>
> Famous reformations include[1]:
>
> * Protestant Reformation, an attempt by Martin Luther to reform the
> Church that resulted in a schism, and grew into a wider movement.
> * English Reformation, series of events in sixteenth-century England by
> which the church in England broke away from the authority of the Pope
> and the Roman Catholic Church
> * Radical Reformation, an Anabaptist movement concurrent with the
> Protestant Reformation.
> * Counter-Reformation, a Catholic response to the Protestant
> Reformation.
>
> But in fact, thats simply a useful label we have to group the
> historical actions of a group that we reference in a historical
> context. So the actual objective truth is not affected by the
> subjective nature you assign to a label.
and do not reflect, objective truth by virtue of several facts which I
have already identified and demonstrated.
>
> >>> > But according to your "everything is interpretation", that is
> >>> simply
> >>> > your interpretation.
>
> >>> That's a mischaracterization. They have intepreted the Bible and it
> >>> is
> >>> reflected in their writings. If you'd like to dispute that, go
> >>> ahead.
> >>> Provide an example.
>
> >> Excluded middle. See above.
>
> > See above why this is irrelevant.
>
> You've confused subjective social, religious and political events,
> people and concepts with the objective things they refer to.
I'll note, established through existential premises. Premises you
routinely dismiss when it doesn't square with your bankrupt religious
epistomology. That makes you a hypocrit who employs double standards.
>
> > You are now
> > claiming that observation is a valid means for discovering truth
>
> I never said it wasn't. I said it has important and specific
> limitations. And I listed many of those limitations:
>
> 3) Observation has very specific limitations as an epistemology
> 4) Finite observations over an arbitrarily unbounded event space cannot
> establish objective truth
> 7) Scientific consensus is neither science nor consensus
> 9) Observation is not sufficient to establish normative behavior
> 10) As sensory perceptions are not objectively certain, relying on them
> to establish objective truth is not tenable.
>
> However, I note that when observation is applied outside of its valid
> scope, the resulting epistemology is not tenable.
used to discover truth---the only tool we, as humans, have.
What is objectvely true is that you do not like observation as being
the only reliable method of discovering truth because it renders your
bankrupt religious epistomology "untenable." So, you employ it
judiciously and abandon it when it conflicts with your religious
epistomology. A double standard.
>
> > while
> > simultaneously saying the observation that The Confession was a
> > "reformation" document replacing the episcopalian interpretation with
> > Calvinism is invalid [1]. That's a double standard and therefore I do
> > not accept your method of argumentation.
>
> We're back to your abuse of sociological labels here.
it renders your bankrupt religious epistomology "untenable."
>
> >>> > > That is your assertion that begs the question. Its also
> >>> irrelevant
> >>> > > since humankind actually did the "measuring" in this instance.
>
> >>> > But thats only your interpretation of it.
>
> >>> You claim I am merely interpreting. You are applying a double
> >>> standard. One for me (I am interpreting) and one for you and the
> >>> "divines" (you are not interpreting). That's rather the point of the
> >>> entire thread, Brock. You bash people for the same methods you use
> >>> to
> >>> acquire knowledge. You're a hypocrit.
>
> >> No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
> >> conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
>
> > "I am (you are) applying" existential premises and in the process
> > using a double standard. It is perfectly reasonable to say that I am
> > interpreting The Confession. But, in doing so you are using the very
> > same methods of argumentation I am when I say The Confession is
> > interpretation. You cannot then say my method is wrong but yours is
> > correct. That's a double standard.
>
> We're back to your abuse of sociological labels here.
it renders your bankrupt religious epistomology "untenable."
>
> >>> If you're going to claim I am interpreting, then you are subscribing
> >>> to the same principles of observation. The only difference is, and
> >>> the
> >>> point of the thread, that you are applying a double standard. I am
> >>> interpreting but niether you nor the Confession is. You can't have
> >>> it
> >>> both ways, Brock. You want to say I am interpreting and then claim
> >>> you
> >>> are not subject to the very same application of principles.
>
> >> No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
> >> conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
>
> > "I am (you are) applying" existential premises (scooter's) and in
> > the process using a double standard. It is perfectly reasonable to
> > say
> > that I am interpreting The Confession. But, in doing so you are using
> > the very same methods of argumentation I am when I say The Confession
> > is interpretation. You cannot then say my method is wrong but yours
> > is
> > correct. That's a double standard.
>
> Your analysis is not accurate. I do not presume nor accept existential
> premises as the basis for my epistemology[2].
existential premises to argue your point.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>Going by your eristic analysis, it never will be either.
In fact, my participation is not particularly relevant. You seem
quite able to perpetuate a position for me and then respond to it.
Some folks call that a scarecrow.
>
>
>
> >
> > >> I simply noted that you disqualified the Confession because it was a
> > >> 17th century document, and not written from 1st century culture and
> > >> context. Following your (incorrect) logic, it also presumes that your
> > >> interpretation of the Confession is not valid, because you do not have
> > >> 17th century culture and context.
> >
> > > That's another mischaraterization. I did not "disqualify" the
> > > Confession. I said it could not possibly be objectivelt true. I said
> > > the fact that its a summary makes it demostrably true that its been
> > > read and condensed. In doing so, it requires interpretation. I said
> > > that another indicater is the fact that there are more than one
> > > interpretations such as Episcopalian, Catholicism etc. ad nauseum. I
> > > provided an example of a chapter from the Confession that has clear
> > > and unambiguous references to Genesis 1. All these facts are
> > > evidenciary of the fact that the Confession is an interpretation. That
> > > makes it subjective whether you like it or not.
> >
> > I believe you are a bit liberal in your labeling and usage of terms.
>
> Irrelevant.
Frankly, its got creedence I don't believe you've considered. :)
> > In your rush to label the Confession as subjective, you've
> > oversimplified significantly.
>
> Irrelevant.
Actually, I believe it is very relevant, in a manly sort of way. :)
> > >> Of course the bigger issue, of culture and context is simply that your
> > >> simplistic "17th century is not the 1st century" is an example of an
> > >> excluded middle. You simply create an arbitrary categorization, one
> > >> that excludes the possibility that:
> >
> > > Again, the cultural disconnect is not what's important. You can try
> > > and make a big deal of it to distract. It won't work. Your bloviating
> > > is irrelevant.
> >
> > It was your position that the cultural differences were important.
>
> That's your interpretation, just like you interpret the Bible and The
> Confession.
I'm pretty sure the cultural differences were brought up by you in
your first post in the thread. :)
> > >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
> >
> > > Or, more accurately stated: "The Westminster Confession of Faith
> > > contains useful summary references to many of the propositional truths
> > > of the Bible from a Calvinistic point of view."
> >
> > Well, it is as useful as a label can be. But not the whole story.
>
> Your labels are the epitome of over-simplification.
I think its good. It works on many levels, as far as labels do. But
the most interesting point from my perspective is the limited nature
of relying upon them to establish your claims.
> > > I note The Confession was a "reformation" of beliefs. That's why it
> > > was called the "reformation", Brock. That makes it subjective.
> >
> > No, it was called the "reformation" because it was and is a useful
> > historical catagorization.
>
> Its a categorization of beliefs. Your point is moot.
Well, interestingly enough, that is a response I expected.
> > Famous reformations include[1]:
> >
> > * Protestant Reformation, an attempt by Martin Luther to reform the
> > Church that resulted in a schism, and grew into a wider movement.
> > * English Reformation, series of events in sixteenth-century England by
> > which the church in England broke away from the authority of the Pope
> > and the Roman Catholic Church
> > * Radical Reformation, an Anabaptist movement concurrent with the
> > Protestant Reformation.
> > * Counter-Reformation, a Catholic response to the Protestant
> > Reformation.
> >
> > But in fact, thats simply a useful label we have to group the
> > historical actions of a group that we reference in a historical
> > context. So the actual objective truth is not affected by the
> > subjective nature you assign to a label.
>
> That's true. It is objectively true that these "categories" are not,
> and do not reflect, objective truth by virtue of several facts which I
> have already identified and demonstrated.
But it is the objective nature of subjective categories that you rely
upon. I trust you can connect the dots from here.
> > > See above why this is irrelevant.
> >
> > You've confused subjective social, religious and political events,
> > people and concepts with the objective things they refer to.
>
> You've confused objective truth with subjective interpretation.
Thats your premise. But you've not established it except by appeal to
it circularly.
> > > You are using observed evidence to support a conclusion that Columbus
> > > recieved financial support from the King and Queen of Spain. A method
> > > you routinely denounce as "untenable", suddenly is valid.
> >
> > You mischaracterize my statements. The objective truth of
> >
> > * Christopher Columbus received financial support from the King and
> > Queen of Spain
> >
> > is not established by your disputation or lack of disputation of the
> > premise. It is an objective statement and a summary that contained it
> > would be objectively true with respect to that proposition.
>
> That's only true because it is an already established fact.
Well, my point was that it was objectively true regardless of your
disputation of it. It is an objective statement and a summary that
contained it would by objectively true with respect to the
proposition.
> A fact,
> I'll note, established through existential premises.
Now thats circular reasoning. The objective nature of that fact is
independent of your belief that it is a fact.
> Premises you
> routinely dismiss when it doesn't square with your bankrupt religious
> epistomology. That makes you a hypocrit who employs double standards.
I don't accept existential standards. I've articulated clearly many
classical examples of existential premises and how they are not
tenable.
> > > You are now
> > > claiming that observation is a valid means for discovering truth
> >
> > I never said it wasn't. I said it has important and specific
> > limitations. And I listed many of those limitations:
> >
> > 3) Observation has very specific limitations as an epistemology
> > 4) Finite observations over an arbitrarily unbounded event space cannot
> > establish objective truth
> > 7) Scientific consensus is neither science nor consensus
> > 9) Observation is not sufficient to establish normative behavior
> > 10) As sensory perceptions are not objectively certain, relying on them
> > to establish objective truth is not tenable.
> >
> > However, I note that when observation is applied outside of its valid
> > scope, the resulting epistemology is not tenable.
>
> That's because observation is not an epistomology. Rather, its a tool
> used to discover truth---the only tool we, as humans, have.
Well, I'm more surprised that you didn't disqualify my items 3), 4),
7), 9) and 10) by saying they were a summary, and since they were a
summary they were necessarily interpretations and since they were
interpretations they were necessarily not objectively true.
It didn't work when you tried it with the Confession.
It didn't work with the 1 item summary ("Christopher Columbus ...") above.
It wont't work with my partial list of why existentialism is not tenable.
> What is objectvely true is that you do not like observation as being
> the only reliable method of discovering truth because it renders your
> bankrupt religious epistomology "untenable." So, you employ it
> judiciously and abandon it when it conflicts with your religious
> epistomology. A double standard.
I like how I said it above.
"I said it has important and specific limitations. However, I note
that when observation is applied outside of its valid scope, the
resulting epistemology is not tenable. "
I think thats a pretty good fit.
> > > while
> > > simultaneously saying the observation that The Confession was a
> > > "reformation" document replacing the episcopalian interpretation with
> > > Calvinism is invalid [1]. That's a double standard and therefore I do
> > > not accept your method of argumentation.
> >
> > We're back to your abuse of sociological labels here.
>
> We're back to you selectively discarding existentialism here because
> it renders your bankrupt religious epistomology "untenable."
I certainly don't see it that way. :)
> > >>> > > That is your assertion that begs the question. Its also
> > >>> irrelevant
> > >>> > > since humankind actually did the "measuring" in this instance.
> >
> > >>> > But thats only your interpretation of it.
> >
> > >>> You claim I am merely interpreting. You are applying a double
> > >>> standard. One for me (I am interpreting) and one for you and the
> > >>> "divines" (you are not interpreting). That's rather the point of the
> > >>> entire thread, Brock. You bash people for the same methods you use
> > >>> to
> > >>> acquire knowledge. You're a hypocrit.
> >
> > >> No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
> > >> conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
> >
> > > "I am (you are) applying" existential premises and in the process
> > > using a double standard. It is perfectly reasonable to say that I am
> > > interpreting The Confession. But, in doing so you are using the very
> > > same methods of argumentation I am when I say The Confession is
> > > interpretation. You cannot then say my method is wrong but yours is
> > > correct. That's a double standard.
> >
> > We're back to your abuse of sociological labels here.
>
> We're back to you selectively discarding existentialism here because
> it renders your bankrupt religious epistomology "untenable."
Well, its an interesting claim, but I don't believe your presentation
shows that. Further, I don't believe I've articulated such a
position.
> > >>> If you're going to claim I am interpreting, then you are subscribing
> > >>> to the same principles of observation. The only difference is, and
> > >>> the
> > >>> point of the thread, that you are applying a double standard. I am
> > >>> interpreting but niether you nor the Confession is. You can't have
> > >>> it
> > >>> both ways, Brock. You want to say I am interpreting and then claim
> > >>> you
> > >>> are not subject to the very same application of principles.
> >
> > >> No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
> > >> conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
> >
> > > "I am (you are) applying" existential premises (scooter's) and in
> > > the process using a double standard. It is perfectly reasonable to
> > > say
> > > that I am interpreting The Confession. But, in doing so you are using
> > > the very same methods of argumentation I am when I say The Confession
> > > is interpretation. You cannot then say my method is wrong but yours
> > > is
> > > correct. That's a double standard.
> >
> > Your analysis is not accurate. I do not presume nor accept existential
> > premises as the basis for my epistemology[2].
>
> Then you can apply your "reasoning" and epistomology without using
> existential premises to argue your point.
Existential premises are just fine in their proper scope. I've been
careful and clear about that from the beginning. You've not
differentiated between my position:
* observations are limited in establishing objective truth
and the scarecrow:
* observations cannot establish objective truth
No, it makes me patient. :)
Patient to take your premises, apply them and show how their
application is inconsistent and untenable by even your own standards.
Regards,
Brock
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>On Mar 5, 7:07 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > >> I simply noted that you disqualified the Confession because it was a
> > > >> 17th century document, and not written from 1st century culture and
> > > >> context. Following your (incorrect) logic, it also presumes that your
> > > >> interpretation of the Confession is not valid, because you do not have
> > > >> 17th century culture and context.
>
> > > > That's another mischaraterization. I did not "disqualify" the
> > > > Confession. I said it could not possibly be objectivelt true. I said
> > > > the fact that its a summary makes it demostrably true that its been
> > > > read and condensed. In doing so, it requires interpretation. I said
> > > > that another indicater is the fact that there are more than one
> > > > interpretations such as Episcopalian, Catholicism etc. ad nauseum. I
> > > > provided an example of a chapter from the Confession that has clear
> > > > and unambiguous references to Genesis 1. All these facts are
> > > > evidenciary of the fact that the Confession is an interpretation. That
> > > > makes it subjective whether you like it or not.
>
> > > I believe you are a bit liberal in your labeling and usage of terms.
>
> > Irrelevant.
>
> Frankly, its got creedence I don't believe you've considered. :)
>
> > > In your rush to label the Confession as subjective, you've
> > > oversimplified significantly.
>
> > Irrelevant.
>
> Actually, I believe it is very relevant, in a manly sort of way. :)
>
> > > >> Of course the bigger issue, of culture and context is simply that your
> > > >> simplistic "17th century is not the 1st century" is an example of an
> > > >> excluded middle. You simply create an arbitrary categorization, one
> > > >> that excludes the possibility that:
>
> > > > Again, the cultural disconnect is not what's important. You can try
> > > > and make a big deal of it to distract. It won't work. Your bloviating
> > > > is irrelevant.
>
> > > It was your position that the cultural differences were important.
>
> > That's your interpretation, just like you interpret the Bible and The
> > Confession.
>
> I'm pretty sure the cultural differences were brought up by you in
> your first post in the thread. :)
as a means of argument.
>
> > > >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> > > > Or, more accurately stated: "The Westminster Confession of Faith
> > > > contains useful summary references to many of the propositional truths
> > > > of the Bible from a Calvinistic point of view."
>
> > > Well, it is as useful as a label can be. But not the whole story.
>
> > Your labels are the epitome of over-simplification.
>
> I think its good. It works on many levels, as far as labels do. But
> the most interesting point from my perspective is the limited nature
> of relying upon them to establish your claims.
your overly-simplistic and ambiguous platitudes are inaccurate. Hence,
the addition of labels to your labels.
>
> > > > I note The Confession was a "reformation" of beliefs. That's why it
> > > > was called the "reformation", Brock. That makes it subjective.
>
> > > No, it was called the "reformation" because it was and is a useful
> > > historical catagorization.
>
> > Its a categorization of beliefs. Your point is moot.
>
> Well, interestingly enough, that is a response I expected.
>
> > > Famous reformations include[1]:
>
> > > * Protestant Reformation, an attempt by Martin Luther to reform the
> > > Church that resulted in a schism, and grew into a wider movement.
> > > * English Reformation, series of events in sixteenth-century England by
> > > which the church in England broke away from the authority of the Pope
> > > and the Roman Catholic Church
> > > * Radical Reformation, an Anabaptist movement concurrent with the
> > > Protestant Reformation.
> > > * Counter-Reformation, a Catholic response to the Protestant
> > > Reformation.
>
> > > But in fact, thats simply a useful label we have to group the
> > > historical actions of a group that we reference in a historical
> > > context. So the actual objective truth is not affected by the
> > > subjective nature you assign to a label.
>
> > That's true. It is objectively true that these "categories" are not,
> > and do not reflect, objective truth by virtue of several facts which I
> > have already identified and demonstrated.
>
> But it is the objective nature of subjective categories that you rely
> upon. I trust you can connect the dots from here.
particular ambiguity. That is to say, you have nothing but verbose
platitudes.
>
> > > > See above why this is irrelevant.
>
> > > You've confused subjective social, religious and political events,
> > > people and concepts with the objective things they refer to.
>
> > You've confused objective truth with subjective interpretation.
>
> Thats your premise. But you've not established it except by appeal to
> it circularly.
objective truth nor even provided the slightest evidence.
>
> > > > You are using observed evidence to support a conclusion that Columbus
> > > > recieved financial support from the King and Queen of Spain. A method
> > > > you routinely denounce as "untenable", suddenly is valid.
>
> > > You mischaracterize my statements. The objective truth of
>
> > > * Christopher Columbus received financial support from the King and
> > > Queen of Spain
>
> > > is not established by your disputation or lack of disputation of the
> > > premise. It is an objective statement and a summary that contained it
> > > would be objectively true with respect to that proposition.
>
> > That's only true because it is an already established fact.
>
> Well, my point was that it was objectively true regardless of your
> disputation of it. It is an objective statement and a summary that
> contained it would by objectively true with respect to the
> proposition.
summary is a summary of already established fact. Fact that has been
established through existential premises that you are now trying to
compare with The Confession. Basically, you want existentialism to
apply to make your argument but do not want to apply the same scrutiny
to The Confession. You're a hypocrit.
>
> > A fact,
> > I'll note, established through existential premises.
>
> Now thats circular reasoning. The objective nature of that fact is
> independent of your belief that it is a fact.
>
> > Premises you
> > routinely dismiss when it doesn't square with your bankrupt religious
> > epistomology. That makes you a hypocrit who employs double standards.
>
> I don't accept existential standards. I've articulated clearly many
> classical examples of existential premises and how they are not
> tenable.
hypocrit.
>
> > > > You are now
> > > > claiming that observation is a valid means for discovering truth
>
> > > I never said it wasn't. I said it has important and specific
> > > limitations. And I listed many of those limitations:
>
> > > 3) Observation has very specific limitations as an epistemology
> > > 4) Finite observations over an arbitrarily unbounded event space cannot
> > > establish objective truth
> > > 7) Scientific consensus is neither science nor consensus
> > > 9) Observation is not sufficient to establish normative behavior
> > > 10) As sensory perceptions are not objectively certain, relying on them
> > > to establish objective truth is not tenable.
>
> > > However, I note that when observation is applied outside of its valid
> > > scope, the resulting epistemology is not tenable.
>
> > That's because observation is not an epistomology. Rather, its a tool
> > used to discover truth---the only tool we, as humans, have.
>
> Well, I'm more surprised that you didn't disqualify my items 3), 4),
> 7), 9) and 10) by saying they were a summary, and since they were a
> summary they were necessarily interpretations and since they were
> interpretations they were necessarily not objectively true.
"not necessarily objectively true."
>
> It didn't work when you tried it with the Confession.
> It didn't work with the 1 item summary ("Christopher Columbus ...") above.
observed and what you believe to be true. Of course, that is not
necessarily objective truth.
> It wont't work with my partial list of why existentialism is not tenable.
>
> > What is objectvely true is that you do not like observation as being
> > the only reliable method of discovering truth because it renders your
> > bankrupt religious epistomology "untenable." So, you employ it
> > judiciously and abandon it when it conflicts with your religious
> > epistomology. A double standard.
>
> I like how I said it above.
>
> "I said it has important and specific limitations. However, I note
> that when observation is applied outside of its valid scope, the
> resulting epistemology is not tenable. "
both within the scope of observation. Hence, we know they are not
objectivly true.
>
> I think thats a pretty good fit.
>
> > > > while
> > > > simultaneously saying the observation that The Confession was a
> > > > "reformation" document replacing the episcopalian interpretation with
> > > > Calvinism is invalid [1]. That's a double standard and therefore I do
> > > > not accept your method of argumentation.
>
> > > We're back to your abuse of sociological labels here.
>
> > We're back to you selectively discarding existentialism here because
> > it renders your bankrupt religious epistomology "untenable."
>
> I certainly don't see it that way. :)
>
> > > >>> > > That is your assertion that begs the question. Its also
> > > >>> irrelevant
> > > >>> > > since humankind actually did the "measuring" in this instance.
>
> > > >>> > But thats only your interpretation of it.
>
> > > >>> You claim I am merely interpreting. You are applying a double
> > > >>> standard. One for me (I am interpreting) and one for you and the
> > > >>> "divines" (you are not interpreting). That's rather the point of the
> > > >>> entire thread, Brock. You bash people for the same methods you use
> > > >>> to
> > > >>> acquire knowledge. You're a hypocrit.
>
> > > >> No, I am applying the reasoning of your premises and showing that the
> > > >> conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
>
> > > > "I am (you are) applying" existential premises and in the process
> > > > using a double standard. It is perfectly reasonable to say that I am
> > > > interpreting The Confession. But, in doing so you are using the very
> > > > same methods of argumentation I am when I say The Confession is
> > > > interpretation. You cannot then say my method is wrong but yours is
> > > > correct. That's a double standard.
>
> > > We're back to your abuse of sociological labels here.
>
> > We're back to you selectively discarding existentialism here because
> > it renders your bankrupt religious epistomology "untenable."
>
> Well, its an interesting claim, but I don't believe your presentation
> shows that. Further, I don't believe I've articulated such a
> position.
observation.
existentialist. Your "patience" is irrelevant.
student13
<pairamblr@gmail.com>On Mar 5, 9:10 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2008, at 3:05 AM, student13 wrote:
>
> > Brock : " I don't think *he* thinks that :) "
>
> > Lol
>
> > poor, how can " I " think " he does or he doesn't " ?
>
St13 : why it is not an interesting question ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > also
> > afraid of " that hell " so prefer to take a safe stand . By chance
> > if there is no hell (or heaven)
> > he is anyway not a looser.
>
> benefits) or "stick" (His punishments) that motivate:
"me". The problem is not with
that Lord, but with "me". This me has all the capabilities to
understand a little and *misunderstand* a lot.
This "me" decides that Bible is the word of God the Lord, and WMC is
its interpretation- forgetting or decidedly closing the eyes that even
what is stated in Bible is stated by some one who claims to have had
contact with God the Lord.
There is every possibility that he could be right and he could be
wrong since he was also a human being. And the Lord
the God or God the Lord did not tell "me" directly - until now -
anything. So the problem is not with the existing or nonexisting God
the Lord, but the very "me" - my ability or inability to think,
logically and rationally. To love why Lord is needed at all? any one
rational, logical too loves. So your this expression is not logical
or rational. Then the only chance is about the carrot of getting to
heaven or stick of getting the hell....that fear....!!!
> Its love. :))
>
> > And if there is, then he has * always been
> > standing for "Bible" along with
> > its interpretation of WMC "
> > poor God, any one can take Him for a ride ???
>
>
> Hint: Its still a pile of sand. :)
you move a pile of sand from A to point B?
If yes, then your answer is not fully correct. Even if you consider
vol x or weight y transfered from A to B, there is going to be some
addition or some loss. It is never exactly same, unless otherwise some
extra care is taken to take care of that situation - thinking well in
advance. Similarly, here also , in advance one need to think. One
need to give some
respect to the Lord the God ( one who believes in him ) that he is not
such a dumb to throw any one to hell eternally or heaven depending on
just his "blind" obedience or one's view that " Love because of Lord
".
So that thinking is what is logical or rational.
looking for your disagreement along with reasons if any.
enjoy
cheers
student13
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>I know you believe it to be so. But you're by your own admission
biased on this issue.
Sure, its relevant. You objectively claim subjectivity for the
Confession on the basis of your subjective categorizations. That makes
it very relevant.
>
>
>>
>>> > In your rush to label the Confession as subjective, you've
>>> > oversimplified significantly.
>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>
>> Actually, I believe it is very relevant, in a manly sort of way. :)
>
> What you believe is irrelevant.
Well, the manly stuff is certainly debateable, but the main point:
"In your rush to label the Confession as subjective, you've
oversimplified significantly"
is pure gold.
>>> > >> Of course the bigger issue, of culture and context is simply
>>> that your
>>> > >> simplistic "17th century is not the 1st century" is an example
>>> of an
>>> > >> excluded middle. You simply create an arbitrary
>>> categorization, one
>>> > >> that excludes the possibility that:
>>
>>> > > Again, the cultural disconnect is not what's important. You can
>>> try
>>> > > and make a big deal of it to distract. It won't work. Your
>>> bloviating
>>> > > is irrelevant.
>>
>>> > It was your position that the cultural differences were important.
>>
>>> That's your interpretation, just like you interpret the Bible and
>>> The
>>> Confession.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure the cultural differences were brought up by you in
>> your first post in the thread. :)
>
> And your interpretation is you hypocritically applying existentialism
> as a means of argument.
Well, you've taken my point that it is you that brought up the cultural
differences initially. Of course, it certainly is my point that you
simply created the cultural differences as an arbitrary categorization
device.
>>> > >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
>>> > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>>
>>> > > Or, more accurately stated: "The Westminster Confession of Faith
>>> > > contains useful summary references to many of the propositional
>>> truths
>>> > > of the Bible from a Calvinistic point of view."
>>
>>> > Well, it is as useful as a label can be. But not the whole story.
>>
>>> Your labels are the epitome of over-simplification.
>>
>> I think its good. It works on many levels, as far as labels do. But
>> the most interesting point from my perspective is the limited nature
>> of relying upon them to establish your claims.
>
> What you think is irrelevant and doesn't detract from the fact that
> your overly-simplistic and ambiguous platitudes are inaccurate. Hence,
> the addition of labels to your labels.
I'm beginning to think that you think that what I think is irrelevant.
:)
C'est la vie. But it is still the case that you incorrectly rely on
the objective properties of subjective labels to establish your claim
that my claim of objectivity is subjective.
>>> > > I note The Confession was a "reformation" of beliefs. That's
>>> why it
>>> > > was called the "reformation", Brock. That makes it subjective.
>>
>>> > No, it was called the "reformation" because it was and is a useful
>>> > historical catagorization.
>>
>>> Its a categorization of beliefs. Your point is moot.
>>
>> Well, interestingly enough, that is a response I expected.
>
> I don't find it particularly interesting.
I'm ok with that.
I think pointing out that you rely on the objective nature of
subjective categories is a succinct, yet accurate statement.
>>> > > See above why this is irrelevant.
>>
>>> > You've confused subjective social, religious and political events,
>>> > people and concepts with the objective things they refer to.
>>
>>> You've confused objective truth with subjective interpretation.
>>
>> Thats your premise. But you've not established it except by appeal to
>> it circularly.
>
> Actually, I have by example. Whereas, you havn't established any
> objective truth nor even provided the slightest evidence.
You claim to establish truth by example. Unfortunately, "There exists
an item such that ... " does not establish "for all items it is true
that ...". Thats the fallacy of inductive reasoning. Which I'm sure
you've heard me point out its limitations. :)
The point does relate to the Confession. Specifically your charge that
summaries cannot be objective. You're also not careful in your
paragraph in your references to "fact". Of course, I have articulated
positions against many of the classic existential positions, and have
related how positions in the forum relate to the classical positions,
including:
* existence precedes essence
* humans define their own reality
* man is the measure of all things
* God is dead
* existentialism is a humanism
>>> A fact,
>>> I'll note, established through existential premises.
>>
>> Now thats circular reasoning. The objective nature of that fact is
>> independent of your belief that it is a fact.
>
> Irrelevant
I may certainly be permitted to claim relevance. :)
>>> Premises you
>>> routinely dismiss when it doesn't square with your bankrupt
>>> religious
>>> epistomology. That makes you a hypocrit who employs double
>>> standards.
>>
>> I don't accept existential standards. I've articulated clearly many
>> classical examples of existential premises and how they are not
>> tenable.
>
> Yet, you continually apply them when it's convenient. You're a
> hypocrit.
I think you mistake convenience for appropriateness.
I like the sentence just how I stated it.
>> It didn't work when you tried it with the Confession.
>
> It worked perfectly
Not really.
>> It didn't work with the 1 item summary ("Christopher Columbus ...")
>> above.
>
> You cannot know objective truth.
Do you claim this objectively? If so, then this claim is your own
counter example. If not, then your "objective" arguments really are
just "subjective" after all.
> You can only know what you have
> observed and what you believe to be true.
But you've only been able to sustain this by appealing to the premise,
aka circular reasoning.
> Of course, that is not
> necessarily objective truth.
I think I've undercut your position quite well.
>> It wont't work with my partial list of why existentialism is not
>> tenable.
>
> Then don't rely on it to make your arguments.
They're perfectly good arguments.
>>> What is objectvely true is that you do not like observation as being
>>> the only reliable method of discovering truth because it renders
>>> your
>>> bankrupt religious epistomology "untenable." So, you employ it
>>> judiciously and abandon it when it conflicts with your religious
>>> epistomology. A double standard.
>>
>> I like how I said it above.
>>
>> "I said it has important and specific limitations. However, I note
>> that when observation is applied outside of its valid scope, the
>> resulting epistemology is not tenable. "
>
> Of course, that's irrelevant because The Confession AND the Bible are
> both within the scope of observation. Hence, we know they are not
> objectivly true.
You again confuse the existential with the universal.
>> I think thats a pretty good fit.
>>
>>> > > while
>>> > > simultaneously saying the observation that The Confession was a
>>> > > "reformation" document replacing the episcopalian
>>> interpretation with
>>> > > Calvinism is invalid [1]. That's a double standard and
>>> therefore I do
>>> > > not accept your method of argumentation.
>>
>>> > We're back to your abuse of sociological labels here.
>>
>>> We're back to you selectively discarding existentialism here because
>>> it renders your bankrupt religious epistomology "untenable."
>>
>> I certainly don't see it that way. :)
>
> Irrelevant
Sure it is relevant. The point about using sociological labels as
objective items in your private propositional calculus is very
relevant.
It would be relevant because your presentations' failure undercuts your
conclusion. And thats why I make the point that I have not articulated
such a position.
You again confuse the existential with the universal.
My patience has been exquisite. You've been as eristic as possible, is
my assessment; still, I have gently and patiently and in a
non-confrontational manner pointed out the weaknesses with your
position.
Besides, its been fun to take your positions apart and understand them
and measure their limitations.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 5, 2008, at 11:34 PM, student13 wrote:
> Hello sir,
>
> On Mar 5, 9:10 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 2008, at 3:05 AM, student13 wrote:
>>
>>> Brock : " I don't think *he* thinks that :) "
>>
>>> Lol
>>
>>> poor, how can " I " think " he does or he doesn't " ?
>>
>> Brock: Not an interesting question to me. :)
> St13 : why it is not an interesting question ?
I don't see why it would be.
>>> like rappoccio says, he knows exactly what he does. But then he is
>>> also
>>> afraid of " that hell " so prefer to take a safe stand . By chance
>>> if there is no hell (or heaven)
>>> he is anyway not a looser.
>>
>> Brock: Its not a pascal's wager item for me. My Lord knows
>> everything about
>> me, and my reasons for doing something. Its not just the "carrot"
>> (His
>> benefits) or "stick" (His punishments) that motivate:
>
> St13: { Assuming there is "my" Lord } o.k., he knows everything about
> "me". The problem is not with
> that Lord, but with "me". This me has all the capabilities to
> understand a little and *misunderstand* a lot.
I agree.
> This "me" decides that Bible is the word of God the Lord, and WMC is
> its interpretation- forgetting or decidedly closing the eyes that even
> what is stated in Bible is stated by some one who claims to have had
> contact with God the Lord.
Without the wondrous help, guidance and love from God's Holy Spirit, I
would be lost as you describe. But He's a person, and there to help
me. The Bible tells me so.
> There is every possibility that he could be right and he could be
> wrong since he was also a human being. And the Lord
> the God or God the Lord did not tell "me" directly - until now -
> anything. So the problem is not with the existing or nonexisting God
> the Lord, but the very "me" - my ability or inability to think,
> logically and rationally.
So true. The Bible calls it a sin problem.
> To love why Lord is needed at all? any one
> rational, logical too loves. So your this expression is not logical
> or rational. Then the only chance is about the carrot of getting to
> heaven or stick of getting the hell....that fear....!!!
Well, God did not leave me in my sinful state, but instead provided a
way for me to escape the eternal consequences of my sin. So love to
the Lord for His goodness is very appropriate.
>> Its love. :))
>>
>>> And if there is, then he has * always been
>>> standing for "Bible" along with
>>> its interpretation of WMC "
>>> poor God, any one can take Him for a ride ???
>>
>> Brock: Do you know what you have when you move a pile of sand from
>> point A to
>> point B?
>>
>> Hint: Its still a pile of sand. :)
>
> St13: Brock, have you ever tried or even witnessed what happens when
> you move a pile of sand from A to point B?
> If yes, then your answer is not fully correct. Even if you consider
> vol x or weight y transfered from A to B, there is going to be some
> addition or some loss.
Hint: Its still a pile of sand. :)
> It is never exactly same, unless otherwise some
> extra care is taken to take care of that situation - thinking well in
> advance. Similarly, here also , in advance one need to think. One
> need to give some
> respect to the Lord the God ( one who believes in him ) that he is not
> such a dumb to throw any one to hell eternally or heaven depending on
> just his "blind" obedience or one's view that " Love because of Lord
> ".
I understand your argument. But:
"humankind is not the measure of all things"
is a very pointed, valid and appropriate response.
> So that thinking is what is logical or rational.
Even the pre-socratic greeks knew about the limitations of rationalism
and empiricism. One could learn a lot from them.
Regards,
Brock
student13
<pairamblr@gmail.com>you know very well, you would never answer when one asks "why" ?
If there is a chance to just quote something, that is the maximum that
you will venture to do.
But when you read msgs from so many in this forum, do you see a
difference? Many of them
try to explain something, as they understand. Not just quoting either
Bible or Socrates or X or Y.
We all have read or heard them. We try to understand them. There
could be differences and agreements
on various points raised by them. But here it is not "belief" - that
guides. It is the understanding and misunderstanding
and that is why the discussions - to understand, to understand better
and to reduce any misunderstanding and come out of - even partially -
ignorance. Because that is growth - growing to maturity.
See your approach again
you say, that is not an interesting question.
I ask why do you think so
you say why it should be?
Now, you were the one who stated something is not interesting.
when asked why you think so, you show your smartness(?) by asking why
it should be!!
How do you expect me to read your mind ? You - only you - know what is
going on or what
is not going on in your mind. So only you can express - honestly or
otherwise.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
again you see your next reply
" so true. Bible calls it a sin problem".
your words so true seems to mean that you are in agreement with my
observations. How can you
agree with my observation when I clearly state that what is stated in
Bible purported to have been told to
some human beings by Lord the God and it is "me" that decides the
Bible to be word of God!! So it is
you - Brock - who says it is word or God on the basis of some X or Y
or Z who also said the same thing.
what use is there, then, by stating "Bible calls it sin problem" when
it is you who says it is word of God while
you agree that God had not directly said anything to you ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and Brock you gave an eg: of pile of sand.
When I explain my understanding of your eg; you say, you understand
my arguement
"but" - then you quote some other line
" humankind is not the measure of all things " and
goes on with your comment " is a very pointed *valid* and *
appropriate * response.
a) you do not explain why it is a very pointed response.
b) it is you who add " value" and "appropriate"ness { and * you
* have all the freedom to add value or reject!! }
I did not understand why you have to add "even" to the last part of
your response. Does it matter who said when?
or Does it matter what is said and how we understand it??
enjoy
cheers
student13
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 6, 2008, at 1:52 AM, student13 wrote:
> See Brock,
>
> you know very well, you would never answer when one asks "why" ?
> If there is a chance to just quote something, that is the maximum that
> you will venture to do.
You make it sound so bad. :)
> But when you read msgs from so many in this forum, do you see a
> difference? Many of them
> try to explain something, as they understand. Not just quoting either
> Bible or Socrates or X or Y.
> We all have read or heard them. We try to understand them. There
> could be differences and agreements
> on various points raised by them.
Then my quotations are appropriate.
> But here it is not "belief" - that
> guides. It is the understanding and misunderstanding
> and that is why the discussions - to understand, to understand better
> and to reduce any misunderstanding and come out of - even partially -
> ignorance. Because that is growth - growing to maturity.
Even the pre-socratic greeks knew about the limitations of rationalism
and empiricism. One could learn a lot from them. I do not believe
that they are capable of providing the "growth to maturity" that you
think they do.
> See your approach again
>
> you say, that is not an interesting question.
> I ask why do you think so
> you say why it should be?
>
> Now, you were the one who stated something is not interesting.
> when asked why you think so, you show your smartness(?) by asking why
> it should be!!
Its not an interesting topic to me. If its interesting to you, feel
free to develop it more; I'll be happy to read your development, but
that's likely where it will stop.
I'll give you a hint, part of the reason its not interesting to me is
that it is a discussion about me relating to me, which is just not an
interesting topic (for me). For a second hint, there's every
indication that its just an eristic device,
> How do you expect me to read your mind ? You - only you - know what is
> going on or what
> is not going on in your mind. So only you can express - honestly or
> otherwise.
As I've noted, its not an interesting topic to me. Feel free to
develop it as you like, I'll read what you have to say.
> again you see your next reply
> " so true. Bible calls it a sin problem".
>
> your words so true seems to mean that you are in agreement with my
> observations. How can you
> agree with my observation when I clearly state that what is stated in
> Bible purported to have been told to
> some human beings by Lord the God and it is "me" that decides the
> Bible to be word of God!! So it is
> you - Brock - who says it is word or God on the basis of some X or Y
> or Z who also said the same thing.
Well, you exclude from this a person. Someone whose presence changes
the nature of the situation. Of course, on my own power, with my own
understanding, I am subject to those serious and notable limitations.
But the Bible testifies that God does not leave me in that state. He
himself sends His own Holy Spirit to live inside of me, and be a guide,
a comforter, a counselor, a wonderful companion. I particularly like
how the Confession says it:
"Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that
covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the
covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and
salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they
may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained
unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to
believe."[1]
When the Holy Spirit acts in my life and in my person, I am
objectively sustained. My powers of reasoning are not sufficient to
sustain me in this world. Neither are my powers of perception
sufficient. The scandal is that knowing their limitations you still
think yours are.
> what use is there, then, by stating "Bible calls it sin problem" when
> it is you who says it is word of God while
> you agree that God had not directly said anything to you ?
Your categorization and my position are not the same. Specifically,
what I've said is:
1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> and Brock you gave an eg: of pile of sand.
> When I explain my understanding of your eg; you say, you understand
> my arguement
> "but" - then you quote some other line
> " humankind is not the measure of all things " and
> goes on with your comment " is a very pointed *valid* and *
> appropriate * response.
> a) you do not explain why it is a very pointed response.
> b) it is you who add " value" and "appropriate"ness { and * you
> * have all the freedom to add value or reject!! }
I don't agree with b). b) relies upon existential premises, which I do
not accept. Humankind is not the measure of all things.
> I did not understand why you have to add "even" to the last part of
> your response. Does it matter who said when?
> or Does it matter what is said and how we understand it??
You're articulating a position (the sufficiency of reasoning
(rationalism) and observation (empiricism)) that even the pre-socratics
recognized was invalid. You earlier claim to have knowledge of their
positions (and many others) but you allow yourself to fall into the
same trap that was distinctly identified ~2000+ years ago.
So much for the self-sufficiency of "modern" man. The Bible
articulates a better way. God's own Holy Spirit, abiding in you, makes
you sufficient[2].
Regards,
Brock
[1] http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html
Chapter 7 Section 3
[2] http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html
Chapter 20
The sufficiency cited here is direct and specific. See "The liberty
which Christ has purchased for believers under the Gospel consists in
..."
funk
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>From: "Brock Organ" <brock...@gmail.com>
>
> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
Oh brock, and you were doing so well......
(This is the atheist formerly known as zencycle, btw. My work put up a new
net 'nanny' utility that blocks google groups. I'm getting it now through
hotmail)
We've been over this. If the bible were objective you wouldn't need the WCF
to justify or understand it. There is absolutely no verifiable information
regarding the message/philosophy of the trinity in the bible. It's all based
in various interpretations, which by definition makes it subjective. Certain
historical events can be verified by other accounts independent of the
bible, but other than that we have no 'objective' information that god
exists, the garden of eden existed, or things like the great flood happened
(I know, I'll get shit for that one) or pretty much that 9/10 of the old
testament ever happened.
If you wish to believe in the message of the bible because your heart tells
you it's true, fine, but you need to stop characterizing your interpretation
of the bible to be objective. It isn't. I know, you wrote 'independent of my
beliefs', that's not the case.
Here's the analogy: Touching a hot burner on a stove with your bare hand
will burn you. This is an objective fact. The skin will burn, blister, and
possibly scar. All objective. Does it hurt? maybe. Some people are
impervious to pain, others enjoy it. This is the subjective component.
There is no evidence that believing the bible to be true will get you into
heaven. No one, has ever come back with any evidence that heaven exists,
except jesus in the bible. Since we can't send soemone there to active
observe the place and report back, it's existence is subjective. I don't
believe it's there, and you can't prove it's there, except to point to your
bible.
And if you're only going to reply with one-line contrarian responses, don't
bother. It will only demonstrate how far you're regressing.
bonfly
<anubis2@aapt.net.au>watch him practice using the word incorrectly and incessantly for the
next four weeks.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Brock Organ" <brock...@gmail.com>
>
> >
> > 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> > 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> >
>
> Oh brock, and you were doing so well......
I think I'll continue doing well.
> We've been over this. If the bible were objective you wouldn't need the WCF
> to justify or understand it.
> There is absolutely no verifiable information
> regarding the message/philosophy of the trinity in the bible.
Humankind is not the measure of all things. :)
> It's all based
> in various interpretations, which by definition makes it subjective.
Thats overly simplistic.
> Certain
> historical events can be verified by other accounts independent of the
> bible,
Verification is not required to establish objective truth.
> but other than that we have no 'objective' information that god
> exists, the garden of eden existed, or things like the great flood happened
> (I know, I'll get shit for that one) or pretty much that 9/10 of the old
> testament ever happened.
In other words, your epistemology, based on existential premises, is
not sufficient to disqualify the propositions of the Confession. But
that is the limitation of your epistemology, not the Confession.
> If you wish to believe in the message of the bible because your heart tells
> you it's true, fine, but you need to stop characterizing your interpretation
> of the bible to be objective. It isn't. I know, you wrote 'independent of my
> beliefs', that's not the case.
1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
Its been my consistent position for months on this forum. You're
railing against a scarecrow of my position.
> Here's the analogy: Touching a hot burner on a stove with your bare hand
> will burn you. This is an objective fact. The skin will burn, blister, and
> possibly scar. All objective. Does it hurt? maybe. Some people are
> impervious to pain, others enjoy it. This is the subjective component.
You disqualify the Confession because you can't verify it; but your
presumption that your self-sufficiency is sufficient to establish
objectivity is not tenable.
> There is no evidence that believing the bible to be true will get you into
> heaven.
Humankind is not the measure of all things. You cannot judge the
objective nature of the universe simply by your understanding and
perception of it. Those faculties are limited.
> No one, has ever come back with any evidence that heaven exists,
> except jesus in the bible. Since we can't send soemone there to active
> observe the place and report back, it's existence is subjective. I don't
> believe it's there, and you can't prove it's there, except to point to your
> bible.
In each of these statements, the underlying premise is the
self-sufficiency of your perception and understanding. Those are the
two faculties that I explicitly call into question. The objective
truths of the propositions in the Confession are not dependent upon
your verification of them, rather it is the inability of your
faculties to objectively assess the propositions of the Confession
that should indicate to you that your reliance on them is not tenable.
> And if you're only going to reply with one-line contrarian responses, don't
> bother. It will only demonstrate how far you're regressing.
I don't think you're interested in my position so much as responding
to your caricature of it. Of course, I'm still patient in my
responses, and have listed some very pertinent and (as I would
evaluate them) compelling points.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>
> Here we go, BO's new word of the month is eristic. Now we have to
> watch him practice using the word incorrectly and incessantly for the
> next four weeks.
It is a great word.
Regards,
Brock
--
--- brock...@gmail.com ---
"This could lead to excellence ... or serious injury" -- TMBG
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>>
> >> In fact, my participation is not particularly relevant. You seem
> >> quite able to perpetuate a position for me and then respond to it.
> >> Some folks call that a scarecrow.
>
> > Your position is quite clear and it's still irrelevant.
>
> I know you believe it to be so. But you're by your own admission
> biased on this issue.
website does: www.reformed.org. Furthermore, its a matter of
historical record. So, your complaints are irrelevant.
>
>
>
> >>> > In your rush to label the Confession as subjective, you've
> >>> > oversimplified significantly.
>
> >>> Irrelevant.
>
> >> Actually, I believe it is very relevant, in a manly sort of way. :)
>
> > What you believe is irrelevant.
>
> Well, the manly stuff is certainly debateable, but the main point:
>
> "In your rush to label the Confession as subjective, you've
> oversimplified significantly"
historical record. So, your complaints are irrelevant.
>
> is pure gold.
More accurately, pure shit.
>
> >>> > >> Of course the bigger issue, of culture and context is simply
> >>> that your
> >>> > >> simplistic "17th century is not the 1st century" is an example
> >>> of an
> >>> > >> excluded middle. You simply create an arbitrary
> >>> categorization, one
> >>> > >> that excludes the possibility that:
>
> >>> > > Again, the cultural disconnect is not what's important. You can
> >>> try
> >>> > > and make a big deal of it to distract. It won't work. Your
> >>> bloviating
> >>> > > is irrelevant.
>
> >>> > It was your position that the cultural differences were important.
>
> >>> That's your interpretation, just like you interpret the Bible and
> >>> The
> >>> Confession.
>
> >> I'm pretty sure the cultural differences were brought up by you in
> >> your first post in the thread. :)
>
> > And your interpretation is you hypocritically applying existentialism
> > as a means of argument.
>
> Well, you've taken my point that it is you that brought up the cultural
> differences initially. Of course, it certainly is my point that you
> simply created the cultural differences as an arbitrary categorization
> device.
record and are not simply arbitrarily assigned.
>
> >>> > >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> >>> > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> >>> > > Or, more accurately stated: "The Westminster Confession of Faith
> >>> > > contains useful summary references to many of the propositional
> >>> truths
> >>> > > of the Bible from a Calvinistic point of view."
>
> >>> > Well, it is as useful as a label can be. But not the whole story.
accuracy adds clarity to your overly-simplified positions.
>
> >>> Your labels are the epitome of over-simplification.
>
> >> I think its good. It works on many levels, as far as labels do. But
> >> the most interesting point from my perspective is the limited nature
> >> of relying upon them to establish your claims.
perception requires interpretation and interpretation is subjective.
>
> > What you think is irrelevant and doesn't detract from the fact that
> > your overly-simplistic and ambiguous platitudes are inaccurate. Hence,
> > the addition of labels to your labels.
>
> I'm beginning to think that you think that what I think is irrelevant.
> :)
Absolutly.
>
> C'est la vie. But it is still the case that you incorrectly rely on
> the objective properties of subjective labels to establish your claim
> that my claim of objectivity is subjective.
claim of your subjectivity is subjective. I.e., you're a hypocrit.
>
> >>> > > I note The Confession was a "reformation" of beliefs. That's
> >>> why it
> >>> > > was called the "reformation", Brock. That makes it subjective.
>
> >>> > No, it was called the "reformation" because it was and is a useful
> >>> > historical catagorization.
>
> >>> Its a categorization of beliefs. Your point is moot.
>
> >> Well, interestingly enough, that is a response I expected.
>
> > I don't find it particularly interesting.
>
> I'm ok with that.
>
> >>> > Famous reformations include[1]:
>
> >>> > * Protestant Reformation, an attempt by Martin Luther to reform
> >>> the
> >>> > Church that resulted in a schism, and grew into a wider movement.
> >>> > * English Reformation, series of events in sixteenth-century
> >>> England by
> >>> > which the church in England broke away from the authority of the
> >>> Pope
> >>> > and the Roman Catholic Church
> >>> > * Radical Reformation, an Anabaptist movement concurrent with the
> >>> > Protestant Reformation.
> >>> > * Counter-Reformation, a Catholic response to the Protestant
> >>> > Reformation.
>
> >>> > But in fact, thats simply a useful label we have to group the
> >>> > historical actions of a group that we reference in a historical
> >>> > context. So the actual objective truth is not affected by the
> >>> > subjective nature you assign to a label.
>
> >>> That's true. It is objectively true that these "categories" are not,
> >>> and do not reflect, objective truth by virtue of several facts
> >>> which I
> >>> have already identified and demonstrated.
>
> >> But it is the objective nature of subjective categories that you rely
> >> upon. I trust you can connect the dots from here.
these categories because they destroy your argument. Too bad.
>
> > And, so do you. Except yours are overly-simplified to elicit a
> > particular ambiguity. That is to say, you have nothing but verbose
> > platitudes.
>
> I think pointing out that you rely on the objective nature of
> subjective categories is a succinct, yet accurate statement.
>
> >>> > > See above why this is irrelevant.
>
> >>> > You've confused subjective social, religious and political events,
> >>> > people and concepts with the objective things they refer to.
>
> >>> You've confused objective truth with subjective interpretation.
>
> >> Thats your premise. But you've not established it except by appeal to
> >> it circularly.
>
> > Actually, I have by example. Whereas, you havn't established any
> > objective truth nor even provided the slightest evidence.
>
> You claim to establish truth by example. Unfortunately, "There exists
> an item such that ... " does not establish "for all items it is true
> that ...". Thats the fallacy of inductive reasoning. Which I'm sure
> you've heard me point out its limitations. :)
the Confession is a reformation document. I.E, its already established
truth that Calvinism is an interpretation and thus subjective.
>
> >>> > > You are using observed evidence to support a conclusion that
> >>> Columbus
> >>> > > recieved financial support from the King and Queen of Spain. A
> >>> method
> >>> > > you routinely denounce as "untenable", suddenly is valid.
>
> >>> > You mischaracterize my statements. The objective truth of
>
> >>> > * Christopher Columbus received financial support from the King
> >>> and
> >>> > Queen of Spain
>
> >>> > is not established by your disputation or lack of disputation of
> >>> the
> >>> > premise. It is an objective statement and a summary that
> >>> contained it
> >>> > would be objectively true with respect to that proposition.
>
> >>> That's only true because it is an already established fact.
>
> >> Well, my point was that it was objectively true regardless of your
> >> disputation of it. It is an objective statement and a summary that
> >> contained it would by objectively true with respect to the
> >> proposition.
observed. Thats rather the point.
>
> > Your point is moot because it does not relate to The Confession. The
> > summary is a summary of already established fact. Fact that has been
> > established through existential premises that you are now trying to
> > compare with The Confession. Basically, you want existentialism to
> > apply to make your argument but do not want to apply the same scrutiny
> > to The Confession. You're a hypocrit.
>
> The point does relate to the Confession. Specifically your charge that
> summaries cannot be objective.
subject to addendum and re-evaluation as has already been pointed out
and demonstrated in the Confession itself.
> You're also not careful in your
> paragraph in your references to "fact". Of course, I have articulated
> positions against many of the classic existential positions, and have
> related how positions in the forum relate to the classical positions,
> including:
own argument.
>
> * existence precedes essence
> * humans define their own reality
> * man is the measure of all things
> * God is dead
> * existentialism is a humanism
>
> >>> A fact,
> >>> I'll note, established through existential premises.
>
> >> Now thats circular reasoning. The objective nature of that fact is
> >> independent of your belief that it is a fact.
>
> > Irrelevant
>
> I may certainly be permitted to claim relevance. :)
>
> >>> Premises you
> >>> routinely dismiss when it doesn't square with your bankrupt
> >>> religious
> >>> epistomology. That makes you a hypocrit who employs double
> >>> standards.
>
> >> I don't accept existential standards. I've articulated clearly many
> >> classical examples of existential premises and how they are not
> >> tenable.
>
> > Yet, you continually apply them when it's convenient. You're a
> > hypocrit.
>
> I think you mistake convenience for appropriateness.
come to a conclusion. That makes you a hypocrit.
>
> >> It didn't work when you tried it with the Confession.
>
> > It worked perfectly
>
> Not really.
>
> >> It didn't work with the 1 item summary ("Christopher Columbus ...")
> >> above.
>
> > You cannot know objective truth.
>
> Do you claim this objectively? If so, then this claim is your own
> counter example. If not, then your "objective" arguments really are
> just "subjective" after all.
>
> > You can only know what you have
> > observed and what you believe to be true.
>
> But you've only been able to sustain this by appealing to the premise,
> aka circular reasoning.
philosophy. Its a matter of psychological fact and the limits of
perception. Which you already acknowledge has limitations. Guess what?
Objective truth is beyond the scope of perception/observation.
>
> > Of course, that is not
> > necessarily objective truth.
>
> I think I've undercut your position quite well.
>
> >> It wont't work with my partial list of why existentialism is not
> >> tenable.
>
> > Then don't rely on it to make your arguments.
>
> They're perfectly good arguments.
hypocrit.
>
> >>> What is objectvely true is that you do not like observation as being
> >>> the only reliable method of discovering truth because it renders
> >>> your
> >>> bankrupt religious epistomology "untenable." So, you employ it
> >>> judiciously and abandon it when it conflicts with your religious
> >>> epistomology. A double standard.
>
> >> I like how I said it above.
>
> >> "I said it has important and specific limitations. However, I note
> >> that when observation is applied outside of its valid scope, the
> >> resulting epistemology is not tenable. "
Confession.
>
> > both within the scope of observation. Hence, we know they are not
> > objectivly true.
>
> You again confuse the existential with the universal.
interpret both subjectively.
>
> >> I think thats a pretty good fit.
>
> >>> > > while
> >>> > > simultaneously saying the observation that The Confession was a
> >>> > > "reformation" document replacing the episcopalian
> >>> interpretation with
> >>> > > Calvinism is invalid [1]. That's a double standard and
> >>> therefore I do
> >>> > > not accept your method of argumentation.
>
> >>> > We're back to your abuse of sociological labels here.
>
> >>> We're back to you selectively discarding existentialism here because
> >>> it renders your bankrupt religious epistomology "untenable."
>
> >> I certainly don't see it that way. :)
Irrelevant
>
> > Irrelevant
>
> Sure it is relevant. The point about using sociological labels as
> objective items in your private propositional calculus is very
> relevant.
>
>
> It would be relevant because your presentations' failure undercuts your
> conclusion. And thats why I make the point that I have not articulated
> such a position.
The Confession. That is a matter of historical fact. Your points are
moot.
>
> >>> Then you can apply your "reasoning" and epistomology without using
> >>> existential premises to argue your point.
>
> >> Existential premises are just fine in their proper scope. I've been
> >> careful and clear about that from the beginning. You've not
> >> differentiated between my position:
>
> >> * observations are limited in establishing objective truth
>
> >> and the scarecrow:
>
> >> * observations cannot establish objective truth
>
> > Irrelevant. Both the Bible and The Confession are within the scope of
> > observation.
>
> You again confuse the existential with the universal.
Confession. Your point is moot.
interpretation of what I've been is irrelevant.
You have pointed out nothing that is relevant.
>
> Besides, its been fun to take your positions apart and understand them
> and measure their limitations.
hypocrit.
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>to the faults in your initial analysis, with which I'm glad to
clarify my position with:
> As we all know, Crock of Shit Organ frequently relies on this document
> and presents it as "objective truth"
1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
Brock
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>quite able to perpetuate a position for me and then respond to it.
Some folks call that a scarecrow.
"Your position is quite clear and it's still irrelevant."
I know you believe it to be so. But you're by your own admission
biased on this issue.
"Bias is irrelevant."
example, as I've shown with:
> Too, Crock likes to dismiss all
> other argumentation as invalid because he says they rely on
> "existential premises".
that do rely on existential premises. I have articulated positions
how positions in the forum relate to the classical positions,
including:
* humans define their own reality
* man is the measure of all things
* God is dead
* existentialism is a humanism
Brock
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 3, 10:44 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 9:02 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 2008, at 9:04 AM, scooter wrote:
>
> > > None of this is relevant
>
> > Confession does not articulate "existential" premises, in fact, it
> > articulates premises that are considered to be against existentialism.
> > Of course, if you claim the Confession is existential because the
> > process used to produce it, then you are simply begging the question.
>
> objectively true. In fact, in cannot even be used as a reference
> of observation. The "divines" employ the very existential method of
> interpreting the Bible. By your own words, The Confession is
> "untenable."
than that. But we're back to the weakness of your original position,
as I've noted:
> Too, Crock likes to dismiss all
> other argumentation as invalid because he says they rely on
> "existential premises".
the classic existential positions, and have related how positions in
the forum relate to the classical positions, including:
* existence precedes essence
* humans define their own reality
* man is the measure of all things
* God is dead
* existentialism is a humanism
>
>
> "summary" from the Bible. Irrelevant because its an interpretation and
> more precisely because "humans" measured it.
showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth"
original position:
While I'm glad to note that "The Confession was written in 17th
century England" is true; it does not support the claim made by "The
cultural context of 17th century England is not the same as 1st
Century Middle East". Of course, "The cultural context of 17th
century England is not the same as 1st Century Middle East" is not
specific enough to be useful. Cultural contexts may not be identical
in all ways, but may be similar in many. Certainly, there are
differences in language, differences in prevailing political theories,
etc. But there are similarities also, including many of the
fundamental problems of humanity: food, shelter, a need to belong,
social and behavioral pressures, etc.
This still leaves a problem with your statement "Because the cultural
contexts are not the same the Confession is an interpretation", which
is an assertion that some unspecified property of cultural contexts
makes the contents of the Confession an interpretation; Before going
further, I believe it is necessary to specify the unspecified property
and quantify what about it disqualifies the Confession from "objective
truth". Further, you introduce another source of error with the claim
"interpretations universally distort objective reality", since
"interpretations universally distort objective reality" is an
assertion made that interpretations are not objective because they
distort; but not specified is the nature of the distortion. Further,
there is no reason to presume that the nature of distortion of any
"mental representation" (interpretation) necessarily relates to the
Confession in a manner that universally disqualifies the "objective
truth" of the propositions in the Confession. Finally, there is no
stated reason why it is valid to presume that the distortion is
universal.
So because of the mentioned limitations with "Because the cultural
contexts are not the same the Confession is an interpretation",
"interpretations universally distort objective reality" and
"Interpretations are not objectively true", you cannot represent that
"The Confession is not objectively true"
Regards,
Brock
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 3, 2:29 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:16 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:44 AM, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 3, 9:02 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 3, 2008, at 9:04 AM, scooter wrote:
>
> > > > > None of this is relevant
>
> > > > Its very relevant. You claim the Confession is "existential". The
> > > > Confession does not articulate "existential" premises, in fact, it
> > > > articulates premises that are considered to be against existentialism.
> > > > Of course, if you claim the Confession is existential because the
> > > > process used to produce it, then you are simply begging the question.
>
> > > I've been very clear. The Westminster Confession of Faith is not
> > > objectively true. In fact, in cannot even be used as a reference
> > > precisely because its an interpretation based on existential premises
> > > of observation. The "divines" employ the very existential method of
> > > interpreting the Bible. By your own words, The Confession is
> > > "untenable."
>
> > method, that you can state is not:
>
> > * The Westminster Confession of Faith is not objectively true.
>
> > Rather, it is:
>
> > * My (scooter's) interpretation of the Westminster Confession of Faith
> > is not objectively true as I (scooter) interpret it.
>
> That's you using existential premises to make your point. Which, I
> note, you condemn as "untenable." If you are going to claim I am
> "interpreting" you are using the same principles to arrive at that
> conclusion that you summarily condemn as "untenable."
>
>
>
>
> > > > I'm happy to note in response:
>
> > > > Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>
> > > Begs the question and is irrelevant. The Confession draws its feeble
> > > "summary" from the Bible. Irrelevant because its an interpretation and
> > > more precisely because "humans" measured it.
>
>
> > "My (scooter) interpretation of the Confession draws its feeble
> > "summary" from the Bible."
>
> > In making your "objective" assertion against the Confession, you
> > violate your own "every thing is interpretive" rule.
>
> Thats a mischaracterization of my position. I did not say "everything
> is interpretation". I said The Confession is interpretation and as
> such is not objectively true. In fact, that makes it a distortion of
> what you believe to be objectively true (i.e., the Bible) -- and, I
> provided example. Furthermore, I never claimed ny statement to be
> objectivly true. That is your own interpretation which I note is
> another mischaracterization of my position. Do you disagree that The
> substantial proof that your claims are objectively true--as per your
> epistomology. Do not use any methods of observation to come to your
> conclusion as they will not be acceptable as per your "untenable"
> remarks.
I think its very relevant:
You said:
"The aim of this post is to discredit Crock by
showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth"
"In your rush to label the Confession as subjective, you've
oversimplified significantly"
Frankly, "The Confession interprets the Bible" is a statement that is
not well qualified. It is not clear exactly how you believe the
Confession interprets the Bible. If the definition for interpretation
"a mental representation of the meaning or significance of something"
is meant, then strictly speaking, the Confession is not a mental
representation, its a written document. More informally, the
Confession as a document may be related to mental representations used
by the authors, but the nature of that relationship is not
established, nor how the propositions of Confession necessarily are
limited by that relationship.
Therefore, "The Confession interprets the Bible" does not support "The
Confession is not objectively true". Of course, with "interpretations
universally distort objective reality" the assertion is made that
specified is the nature of the distortion. Further, there is no
reason to presume that the nature of distortion of any "mental
propositions in the Confession. Finally, there is no stated reason
why it is valid to presume that the distortion is universal.
specific enough to make a valid determination of objectivity. So I
think it is very correct to note that because of the mentioned
limitations with "The Confession interprets the Bible",
objectively true" fails to be established.
Regards,
Brock
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 3, 9:25 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 11:36 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 1, 11:54 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The Confession relies on the very existential premises that Crock so
> > > despises thus exposing his monumental hypocracy.
>
> > More accurately, my position is:
>
> > 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> More accurately, a summary reference *requires* interpretation.
> Therfore, if, as you claim, the Bible is objectively true, the
> interpretation is at best a distortion.
> Too, Crock likes to dismiss all
> other argumentation as invalid because he says they rely on
> "existential premises".
Not all other argumentation. Simply those arguments that do rely on
existential premises. I have articulated positions against many of
the classic existential positions, and have related how positions in
the forum relate to the classical positions, including:
* existence precedes essence
* humans define their own reality
* man is the measure of all things
* God is dead
* existentialism is a humanism
Brock
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 3, 10:58 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 9:13 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > On Mar 2, 11:36 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Mar 1, 11:54 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> The aim of this post is to discredit Crock by
> > >>> showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth and;
> > >>> 2)
> > >>> The Confession relies on the very existential premises that Crock so
> > >>> despises thus exposing his monumental hypocracy.
>
> > >> More accurately, my position is:
>
> > >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> > > More accurately, a summary reference *requires* interpretation.
> > > Therfore, if, as you claim, the Bible is objectively true, the
> > > interpretation is at best a distortion.
>
> > interpretation of my position is at best a distortion, which means
> > you've not addressing my position.
>
> which is a summary. A summary requires interpretation and therefore,
> by your own words is "untenable."
>
>
>
>
> > >> So you say the Confession is not correct (objectively true) because:
>
> > >> 1) it is written in the mid 17th century and not the 1st century
> > >> over another
>
> > >> 1) is true; but not especially relevant.
>
> > > further denigrates the accuracy of any interpretation precisely
> > > because interpretation *requires* cultual context.--something the
> > > Scots and English clearly did not have.
>
> > But here you are again simply begging the question. Of course, if it
> > is your claim that the Confession authors could not help but interpret
> > because they lacked cultural context, then I note your disagreement
> > with them is not valid on grounds that you do not have their 17th
> > century cultural context, so your "attack" is not legitimate.
>
> Context is not crucial. It merely illustrates the depth that the
> "divines" could have understood the material of the Bible. The crucial
> point is that they interpret. Because they are interpreting, they are
> "untenable."
>
>
>
> > which I note is not valid:
> > Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>
> since humankind actually did the "measuring" in this instance.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> Confession is not an interpretation of the Bible,
>
> > > As example of the Confession's methodology, I'd
> > > like to look at one chapter entitled "Of Creation":
>
> > > "I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the
> > > manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and
> > > goodness,
> > > in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all
> > > things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six
> > > days, and all very good."[1]
> > > End Quote
>
> > > That is an interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 and therefore a
> > > distortion of the perceived "objective truth" of the Bible--the "word
> > > of God."
>
> > be interpretation, then what you are attacking is your interpretation
> > of the Confession and not the Confession, since you lack the 17th
> > century context required.
>
> Irrelevant. The Confession is still an interpretation as has been
> demonstrated.
But as you said:
"The Confession cannot be "objectively true" because it is
an interpretation of the Bible. Written in the mid 17th century, it is
an interpretation that is not even in the social or cultural context
of 1st century Middle East."
"cultural contexts
Regards,
Brock
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 3, 2:17 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:22 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 3, 9:13 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 3, 2008, at 9:25 AM, scooter wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 2, 11:36 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> On Mar 1, 11:54 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>> The aim of this post is to discredit Crock by
> > > > >>> showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth and;
> > > > >>> 2)
> > > > >>> The Confession relies on the very existential premises that Crock so
> > > > >>> despises thus exposing his monumental hypocracy.
>
> > > > >> More accurately, my position is:
>
> > > > >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > > > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> > > > > More accurately, a summary reference *requires* interpretation.
> > > > > Therfore, if, as you claim, the Bible is objectively true, the
> > > > > interpretation is at best a distortion.
>
> > > > But then, by continuing your own incorrect line of reasoning, your
> > > > interpretation of my position is at best a distortion, which means
> > > > you've not addressing my position.
>
> > > We aren't discussing your position.
>
>
> Confession is a "summary" summarily makes it an interpretation.
> Summaries could not exist without interpretation.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > It is relevant precisely because it relates to interpretation. It
> > > > > further denigrates the accuracy of any interpretation precisely
> > > > > because interpretation *requires* cultual context.--something the
> > > > > Scots and English clearly did not have.
>
> > > > But here you are again simply begging the question. Of course, if it
> > > > is your claim that the Confession authors could not help but interpret
> > > > because they lacked cultural context, then I note your disagreement
> > > > with them is not valid on grounds that you do not have their 17th
> > > > century cultural context, so your "attack" is not legitimate.
>
> > > Context is not crucial.
>
> > your interpretation.
>
> provided example. Do you disagree that The Westminster Confession of
>
>
> > > It merely illustrates the depth that the
> > > "divines" could have understood the material of the Bible. The crucial
> > > point is that they interpret.
>
> > your interpretation.
>
> That's a mischaracterization. They have intepreted the Bible and it is
> reflected in their writings. If you'd like to dispute that, go ahead.
> Provide an example.
>
>
>
> > > relying on observation which I note, by your own words, is
> > > "untenable."
>
> > "everything is interpretation".
>
> is interpretation". I said The Confession is interpretation and I
> provided example.
>
>
>
> > Put another way, its only your interpretation that they are
> > "subjectively interpreting".
> > > > Of course, we're still back fundamentally to your circular argument,
> > > > which I note is not valid:
>
> > > > Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>
> > > That is your assertion that begs the question. Its also irrelevant
> > > since humankind actually did the "measuring" in this instance.
>
>
> You claim I am merely interpreting. You are applying a double
> standard. One for me (I am interpreting) and one for you and the
> "divines" (you are not interpreting). That's rather the point of the
> entire thread, Brock. You bash people for the same methods you use to
> acquire knowledge. You're a hypocrit.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > >> of creedal statements for the purpose of, you guessed it:
>
> > > > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> > > > > without interpretation.
>
> > > > Not true. Of course, following your logic, you are only reacting to
> > > > your interpretation of the Confession, and not the Confession.
>
> > > My intepretation of the Confession is irrelevant. What is relevant is
> > > that the Confession is an interpretation and therefore "untenable."
>
> > But your statement:
> > "the Confession is an interpretation"
>
> If you're going to claim I am interpreting, then you are subscribing
> to the same principles of observation. The only difference is, and the
> point of the thread, that you are applying a double standard. I am
> interpreting but niether you nor the Confession is. You can't have it
> both ways, Brock. You want to say I am interpreting and then claim you
> are not subject to the very same application of principles.
>
>
>
> > > > are not sufficient. You're simply begging the question.
>
> > > My case is not predicated on context so much as it is on the fact that
> > > the Confession is an interpretation of the Bible. Your point is moot.
>
> > But your statement that "the Confession is an interpretation of the
> > Bible" is your interpretation. Which is the point in question.
>
> If you're going to claim I am interpreting, then you are subscribing
> to the same principles of observation. The only difference is, and the
> point of the thread, that you are applying a double standard. I am
> interpreting but niether you nor the Confession is. You can't have it
> both ways, Brock. You want to say I am interpreting and then claim you
> are not subject to the very same application of principles. You can't.
> If I am interpreting, you are too.
>
>
>
> > > > reject:
> > > > Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>
> > > "divines", did "measure" the Bible.
>
> > But according to your logic, thats merely your interpretation. :)
>
> According to yours as well. Except when it applies to you. Thats
> rather the point, Brock. You're a hypocrit.
Not really. I like the usefulness of sociological labels, but merely
note that they have limitations. And further:
> Having said that, how does that effect the veracity of the Bible? Even
> if one believes the "propositions of Bible are objectivly true" (which
> they are not), the Confession is an interpretation of the Bible and
> thus a distortion of percieved "objective truth" (begs the question as
> to why there is a need for such a document if the Bible is already
* how does the "interpretive" nature of the Confession affect the
veracity of the Bible?
But note that you leave the question unanswered and unspecified. And
by this example of association with subjectivity, one can presume that
the answer is that the Confession cannot adequately represent the
Bible. But, by the other arguments presented here, this is an overly
simplistic and not tenable claim. So this claim, stated
interrogatively, that the Confession cannot adequately represent the
Bible is based upon premises that are over-simplistic and not
accurate.
Regards,
Brock
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>"Your perspective is, by definition, subjective precisely because
perception requires interpretation and interpretation is subjective."
2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> Unfortunately for Brock, existentialism is precisely what the
> Westminster Confession relied on in RE-forming the Church of England
> (emphasis mine).
idea of existence without essence. ... It directly and strongly
rejects many traditional beliefs including religious beliefs that
humankind is given a knowable purpose by its creator or other
deity."[1]
This is not a position that I subscribe to, nor is it a position that
the authors of the Confession articulate.
* To claim that I articulate such an existential position is not
accurate.
* To claim that the Confession articulates such an existential
position is not accurate.
"humans define their own reality", is a philosophic concept that can
be accurately illustrated by:
"There is no other universe except the human universe, the universe of
human subjectivity. This relation of transcendence as constitutive of
man (not in the sense that God is transcendent, but in the sense of
self-surpassing) with subjectivity (in such a sense that man is not
shut up in himself but forever present in a human universe) - it is
this that we call existential humanism. This is humanism, because we
remind man that there is no legislator but himself; that he himself,
thus abandoned, must decide for himself; also because we show that it
is not by turning back upon himself, but always by seeking, beyond
himself, an aim which is one of liberation or of some particular
realisation, that man can realize himself as truly human."[2]
* To claim that I articulate such an existential position is not
accurate.
* To claim that the Confession articulates such an existential
position is not accurate.
"man is the measure of all things", is a philosophic concept that
underpins existential premises. Protagoras may have been one of the
first to articulate its premises, but is not the last:
"His most famous saying is: "Man is the measure of all things: of
things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that
they are not" ... Plato also ascribes to Protagoras an early form of
phenomenology,[6] in which what is or appears for a single individual
is true or real for that individual. Protagoras was a proponent of
agnosticism. In his lost work, On the Gods, he wrote: "Concerning the
gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what
sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the
brevity of human life""[3]
* To claim that I articulate such an existential position is not
accurate.
* To claim that the Confession articulates such an existential
position is not accurate.
"God is dead" is one of the most famous existential premises
articulated by Nietzsche.
"The death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to
believe in any such cosmic order since they themselves no longer
recognize it. The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to
the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a
rejection of absolute values themselves -- to the rejection of belief
in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all
individuals"[4]
* To claim that I articulate such an existential position is not
accurate.
* To claim that the Confession articulates such an existential
position is not accurate.
Jean-Paul Sarte famously commented on the nature of his
existentialism:
"Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares
with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least
one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which
exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is
man or, as Heidegger has it, the human reality. What do we mean by
saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all
exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world - and defines
himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not
definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be
anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of
himself."[5]
* To claim that I articulate such an existential position is not
accurate.
* To claim that the Confession articulates such an existential
position is not accurate.
> As a rhetorical question, why would one need a
> reformation of "objective truth"?
"objective truth". In fact, "reformation", like other labels used in
this discussion, is largely a subjective categorization that is useful
where it is useful, but has limitations.
Regards,
Brock
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2:23 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 2:17 PM, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 3, 12:22 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 3, 9:13 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 3, 2008, at 9:25 AM, scooter wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mar 2, 11:36 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Mar 1, 11:54 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>> The aim of this post is to discredit Crock by
> > > > > > >>> showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth and;
> > > > > > >>> 2)
> > > > > > >>> The Confession relies on the very existential premises that Crock so
> > > > > > >>> despises thus exposing his monumental hypocracy.
>
> > > > > > >> More accurately, my position is:
>
> > > > > > >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > > > > > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> > > > > > > More accurately, a summary reference *requires* interpretation.
> > > > > > > Therfore, if, as you claim, the Bible is objectively true, the
> > > > > > > interpretation is at best a distortion.
>
> > > > > > But then, by continuing your own incorrect line of reasoning, your
> > > > > > interpretation of my position is at best a distortion, which means
> > > > > > you've not addressing my position.
>
> > > > > We aren't discussing your position.
>
> > > > We were disscussing item 6), which is my position.
>
> > > We already laid to rest your position.
>
>
> Your beliefs are independant of the fact that its been laid to rest.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > is your claim that the Confession authors could not help but interpret
> > > > > > because they lacked cultural context, then I note your disagreement
> > > > > > with them is not valid on grounds that you do not have their 17th
> > > > > > century cultural context, so your "attack" is not legitimate.
>
> > > > > Context is not crucial.
>
> > > > But according to your "everything is interpretation", that is simply
> > > > your interpretation.
>
> > > Thats a mischaracterization of my position. I did not say "everything
> > > is interpretation". I said The Confession is interpretation and I
> > > provided example. Do you disagree that The Westminster Confession of
> > > Faith is an interpretation of Biblical scripture? If so, provide an
> > > example supporting your claim.
>
> > 17th century document, and not written from 1st century culture and
> > context. Following your (incorrect) logic, it also presumes that your
> > interpretation of the Confession is not valid, because you do not have
> > 17th century culture and context.
>
> That's another mischaraterization. I did not "disqualify" the
> Confession. I said it could not possibly be objectivelt true. I said
> the fact that its a summary makes it demostrably true that its been
> read and condensed. In doing so, it requires interpretation. I said
> that another indicater is the fact that there are more than one
> interpretations such as Episcopalian, Catholicism etc. ad nauseum. I
> provided an example of a chapter from the Confession that has clear
> and unambiguous references to Genesis 1. All these facts are
> evidenciary of the fact that the Confession is an interpretation. That
> makes it subjective whether you like it or not.
>
>
>
> > simplistic "17th century is not the 1st century" is an example of an
> > excluded middle. You simply create an arbitrary categorization, one
> > that excludes the possibility that:
>
> Again, the cultural disconnect is not what's important. You can try
> and make a big deal of it to distract. It won't work. Your bloviating
> is irrelevant.
>
>
>
> > references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
>
> was called the "reformation", Brock. That makes it subjective.
>
>
>
> > > > your interpretation.
>
> > > That's a mischaracterization. They have intepreted the Bible and it is
> > > reflected in their writings. If you'd like to dispute that, go ahead.
> > > Provide an example.
>
> See above why this is irrelevant.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > relying on observation which I note, by your own words, is
> > > > > "untenable."
>
> > > > They are only interpreting because you have presumed (circularly) that
> > > > "everything is interpretation".
>
> > > That's a mischaracterization of my position. I did not say "everything
> > > is interpretation". I said The Confession is interpretation and I
> > > provided example.
>
>
> > > More accurately, a summary reference *requires* interpretation.
>
>
> > > The Westminster Confession of Faith is not objectively true.
>
> > But that (by the law of the excluded middle) is simply a personal
> > categorization you presume. Any summary reference, by your mis
> > application, can be disqualified. For example, a summary reference
> > for history that mentions:
>
>
> > by your logic, is interpreted and cannot be objectively true. But
> > that is invalid.
>
> That's another mischaraterization. I am not discussing Christopher
> Columbus nor any facts surrounding his historical path. Furthermore,
> no one disputes that particular fact. That doesn't make it
> "objectively true", but it does lend an extremly high truth value to
> its veracity. Getting back on point from your misdirection, The
> Confession IS an interpretation as has been demonstrably shown.
> However, your example exposes your double standard.
>
> recieved financial support from the King and Queen of Spain. A method
> claiming that observation is a valid means for discovering truth while
> "reformation" document replacing the episcopalian interpretation with
> Calvinism is invalid [1]. That's a double standard and therefore I do
> not accept your method of argumentation.
>
> "For this reason, as a condition for entering into the alliance with
> England, the Scottish Parliament formed the Solemn League and Covenant
> with the English Parliament, which meant that the Church of England
> would abandon episcopalianism and consistently adhere to Calvinistic
> standards of doctrine and worship. The Confession and Catechisms were
> produced in order to secure the help of the Scots against the
> king."[1]
>
>
> > > > > That is your assertion that begs the question. Its also irrelevant
> > > > > since humankind actually did the "measuring" in this instance.
>
> > > > But thats only your interpretation of it.
>
> > > You claim I am merely interpreting. You are applying a double
> > > standard. One for me (I am interpreting) and one for you and the
> > > "divines" (you are not interpreting). That's rather the point of the
> > > entire thread, Brock. You bash people for the same methods you use to
> > > acquire knowledge. You're a hypocrit.
>
> > conclusions are inconsistent and invalid.
>
> "I am (you are) applying" existential premises and in the process
> using a double standard. It is perfectly reasonable to say that I am
> interpreting The Confession. But, in doing so you are using the very
> same methods of argumentation I am when I say The Confession is
> interpretation. You cannot then say my method is wrong but yours is
> correct. That's a double standard.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > >> of creedal statements for the purpose of, you guessed it:
>
> > > > > > >> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > > > > > >> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> > > > > > > A summary *requires* interpretation. One cannot summarize anything
> > > > > > > without interpretation.
>
> > > > > > Not true. Of course, following your logic, you are only reacting to
> > > > > > your interpretation of the Confession, and not the Confession.
>
> > > > > My intepretation of the Confession is irrelevant. What is relevant is
> > > > > that the Confession is an interpretation and therefore "untenable."
>
>
> Your exclusion reference is irrelevant.
>
>
> > > > But your statement:
>
> > > > "the Confession is an interpretation"
>
> > > > is your interpretation. So you are begging the question.
>
> > > If you're going to claim I am interpreting, then you are subscribing
> > > to the same principles of observation. The only difference is, and the
> > > point of the thread, that you are applying a double standard. I am
> > > interpreting but niether you nor the Confession is. You can't have it
> > > both ways, Brock. You want to say I am interpreting and then claim you
"I'm beginning to think that you think that what I think is
irrelevant. :)"
"As it concerns the truth value of the Bible or the Confession?
Absolutly."
Regards,
Brock
bonfly
<anubis2@aapt.net.au>more than more if some elusive bitch stabbed your right eye into an
abandoned fence post. Fuck, this is just a guess (two guesses away
from smacking your skull into a fresh pillock)
bonfly
<anubis2@aapt.net.au>yourself till you're a poked'mon deadshit. Nobody likes you. You're
autistic.
bonfly
<anubis2@aapt.net.au>and you already stink like dead pork. Die brock die. (or go on seek
to see if anyone gives a half a shit about you). They won't.
On Mar 7, 8:50 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
funk
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>--------------------------------------------------
From: "Brock Organ" <brock...@gmail.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: Westminster Confession of Existentialism
>> Oh brock, and you were doing so well......
>
> I think I'll continue doing well.
With proper medication, but you have to _promise_ to take it.
>
> Humankind is not the measure of all things. :)
>
You keep saying this, and I know you will continue to do so, but it simply
isn't true. Men wrote the bible and your WCF. Therefore it is _their_
interpretation, it is _their_ metric you are using. unless you are trying to
say the bible and the WCF spontaneously and divinely appeared devoid of the
hand of men?
>> It's all based
>> in various interpretations, which by definition makes it subjective.
>
> Thats overly simplistic.
>
No, it's completely accurate. Once you have to resort to interpretation,
your conclusions are objective. the end.
>> Certain
>> historical events can be verified by other accounts independent of the
>> bible,
>
> Verification is not required to establish objective truth.
>
In the world of rational thought, it is. Otherwise, it's not objective, and
therefore not the truth.
>
> In other words, your epistemology, based on existential premises, is
> not sufficient to disqualify the propositions of the Confession.
Wrong again. It's completely sufficient to disqualify the WCF, from _my_
perspective. Again, that you choose to take the WCF as divine truth is your
prerogative. I chose not to based on equally valid analysis.
>
> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> Its been my consistent position for months on this forum. You're
> railing against a scarecrow of my position.
I never said it wasn't your position, I just said it was wrong. It's not a
'scarecrow', it's your 'consistent position'. IT is who you are and goes to
the very core of your being, unless you're suggesting that you're as
sentient as a scarecrow?
>
> your
> presumption that your self-sufficiency is sufficient to establish
> objectivity is not tenable.
It's as tenable as yours, only mine is based on facts and verifiable
evidence, where as yours is based on emotion and spirituality.
> You cannot judge the
> objective nature of the universe simply by your understanding and
> perception of it. Those faculties are limited.
But you can? You're doing the exactly what you claim I can't. You use your
interpretation of concrete criteria (bible, WCF) to determine objectivity.
>
>> No one, has ever come back with any evidence that heaven exists,
>> except jesus in the bible. Since we can't send soemone there to active
>> observe the place and report back, it's existence is subjective. I don't
>> believe it's there, and you can't prove it's there, except to point to
>> your
>> bible.
>
> In each of these statements, the underlying premise is the
> self-sufficiency of your perception and understanding. Those are the
> two faculties that I explicitly call into question. The objective
> truths of the propositions in the Confession are not dependent upon
> your verification of them, rather it is the inability of your
> faculties to objectively assess the propositions of the Confession
> that should indicate to you that your reliance on them is not tenable.
>
Right back atcha, big fella. Why is _your_ claim that the WCF is objective
any more tenable than my claim that it is subjective? You really don't seen
to grasp the difference between 'objective' and 'subjective'.
There are a lot of people that will call us both wrong, brocko, based purely
on their interpretation/opinion/subjective analysis. Your
interpretation/opinion/subjective analysis is no more valid than theirs, an
as you would claim, than mine. At least my interpretation/opinion/subjective
analysis will stand up to logical analysis.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 7, 2008, at 6:00 AM, bonfly wrote:
>
> Hey brock the organist, I reckon Jesus wouldst love you more and even
> more than more if some elusive bitch stabbed your right eye into an
> abandoned fence post. Fuck, this is just a guess (two guesses away
> from smacking your skull into a fresh pillock)
Would this be eristic? I'm guessing yes. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 7, 2008, at 6:05 AM, bonfly wrote:
> Brock you're a deadshit. Real humans like to vomit on you. Stab
> yourself till you're a poked'mon deadshit. Nobody likes you. You're
> autistic.
You're eristic.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 7, 2008, at 6:10 AM, bonfly wrote:
> bonfly: I'd like to see you die brock. You've got nothing to offer
> and you already stink like dead pork. Die brock die. (or go on seek
> to see if anyone gives a half a shit about you). They won't.
Yep, definitely eristic.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 7, 2008, at 6:12 AM, bonfly wrote:
> Don't resuscitate this abject moron. He doesn't deserve a second
> breath.
More eristry.
Regards,
Brock
Keith MacNevins
<kmacnevins@gmail.com>Keith MacNevins
<kmacnevins@gmail.com>--
Ambassador From Hell
Keith MacNevins
<kmacnevins@gmail.com>scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>On Mar 6, 11:03 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Your beliefs are independant of the fact that its been laid to
> rest.
>
> > Well, I do not assent. :)
>
> Your assention or not is irrelevant.
>
> Going by your eristic analysis, it never will be either.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> I don't think you do well to assert that. I think it even goes back
> to the faults in your initial analysis, with which I'm glad to
> clarify my position with:
>
> > and presents it as "objective truth"
>
> More accurately:
>
> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>On Mar 6, 11:05 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 9:04 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > None of this is relevant
>
> In fact, my participation is not particularly relevant. You seem
> quite able to perpetuate a position for me and then respond to it.
> Some folks call that a scarecrow.
>
> "Your position is quite clear and it's still irrelevant."
>
> I know you believe it to be so. But you're by your own admission
> biased on this issue.
>
> "Bias is irrelevant."
>
> Your bias is very relevant in discussing your conclusions. For
> example, as I've shown with:
therefore so is your objection.
>
> > Too, Crock likes to dismiss all
> > other argumentation as invalid because he says they rely on
> > "existential premises".
>
> Though I note not all other argumentation. Simply those arguments
> that do rely on existential premises. I have articulated positions
> against many of the classic existential positions, and have related
> how positions in the forum relate to the classical positions,
> including:
>
> * existence precedes essence
> * humans define their own reality
> * man is the measure of all things
> * God is dead
> * existentialism is a humanism
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>On Mar 6, 11:07 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:44 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 9:02 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 3, 2008, at 9:04 AM, scooter wrote:
>
> > > > None of this is relevant
>
> > > Its very relevant. You claim the Confession is "existential". The
> > > Confession does not articulate "existential" premises, in fact, it
> > > articulates premises that are considered to be against existentialism.
> > > Of course, if you claim the Confession is existential because the
> > > process used to produce it, then you are simply begging the question.
position.
>
> > I've been very clear. The Westminster Confession of Faith is not
> > objectively true. In fact, in cannot even be used as a reference
> > precisely because its an interpretation based on existential premises
> > of observation. The "divines" employ the very existential method of
> > interpreting the Bible. By your own words, The Confession is
> > "untenable."
>
> Yes, as I've said, the labels are as useful as they are, but not more
> than that. But we're back to the weakness of your original position,
> as I've noted:
>
> > Too, Crock likes to dismiss all
> > other argumentation as invalid because he says they rely on
> > "existential premises".
>
> Not all other argumentation. Simply those arguments that do rely on
> existential premises. I have articulated positions against many of
> the classic existential positions, and have related how positions in
> the forum relate to the classical positions, including:
>
> * existence precedes essence
> * humans define their own reality
> * man is the measure of all things
> * God is dead
> * existentialism is a humanism
defeating and irrelevant.
>
> > > I'm happy to note in response:
>
> > > Humankind is not the measure of all things.
topic at hand, anyway.
>
> > Begs the question and is irrelevant. The Confession draws its feeble
> > "summary" from the Bible. Irrelevant because its an interpretation and
> > more precisely because "humans" measured it.
>
> "I did not label the Confession as subjective."
>
> "The aim of this post is to discredit Crock by
> showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth"
>
> My response is to note it goes back to an invalid assertion in your
> original position:
>
> While I'm glad to note that "The Confession was written in 17th
> century England" is true; it does not support the claim made by "The
> cultural context of 17th century England is not the same as 1st
> Century Middle East". Of course, "The cultural context of 17th
> century England is not the same as 1st Century Middle East" is not
> specific enough to be useful. Cultural contexts may not be identical
> in all ways, but may be similar in many. Certainly, there are
> differences in language, differences in prevailing political theories,
> etc. But there are similarities also, including many of the
> fundamental problems of humanity: food, shelter, a need to belong,
> social and behavioral pressures, etc.
>
> This still leaves a problem with your statement "Because the cultural
> contexts are not the same the Confession is an interpretation", which
> is an assertion that some unspecified property of cultural contexts
> makes the contents of the Confession an interpretation; Before going
> further, I believe it is necessary to specify the unspecified property
> and quantify what about it disqualifies the Confession from "objective
> truth". Further, you introduce another source of error with the claim
> "interpretations universally distort objective reality", since
> "interpretations universally distort objective reality" is an
> assertion made that interpretations are not objective because they
> distort; but not specified is the nature of the distortion. Further,
> there is no reason to presume that the nature of distortion of any
> "mental representation" (interpretation) necessarily relates to the
> Confession in a manner that universally disqualifies the "objective
> truth" of the propositions in the Confession. Finally, there is no
> stated reason why it is valid to presume that the distortion is
> universal.
>
> So because of the mentioned limitations with "Because the cultural
> contexts are not the same the Confession is an interpretation",
> "interpretations universally distort objective reality" and
> "Interpretations are not objectively true", you cannot represent that
> "The Confession is not objectively true"
irrelevant.
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>own epistomology to make an argument?
nature of The Confession. In fact, the subjective interpretation that
is The Confession is independant of complexity or simplicity. Ergo,
simplicity and complexity are irrelevant.
>
> Checking it again, it surely seems relevant.
>
> Frankly, "The Confession interprets the Bible" is a statement that is
> not well qualified. It is not clear exactly how you believe the
> Confession interprets the Bible. If the definition for interpretation
> "a mental representation of the meaning or significance of something"
> is meant, then strictly speaking, the Confession is not a mental
> representation, its a written document. More informally, the
> Confession as a document may be related to mental representations used
> by the authors, but the nature of that relationship is not
> established, nor how the propositions of Confession necessarily are
> limited by that relationship.
>
> Therefore, "The Confession interprets the Bible" does not support "The
> Confession is not objectively true". Of course, with "interpretations
> universally distort objective reality" the assertion is made that
> interpretations are not objective because they distort; but not
> specified is the nature of the distortion. Further, there is no
> reason to presume that the nature of distortion of any "mental
> representation" (interpretation) necessarily relate to the Confession
> in a manner that universally disqualifies the "objective truth" of the
> propositions in the Confession. Finally, there is no stated reason
> why it is valid to presume that the distortion is universal.
> Additionally, "Interpretations are not objectively true" is not
> specific enough to make a valid determination of objectivity. So I
> think it is very correct to note that because of the mentioned
> limitations with "The Confession interprets the Bible",
> "interpretations universally distort objective reality" and
> "Interpretations are not objectively true"; "The Confession is not
> objectively true" fails to be established.
poor and weakly argued conclusion substantiated by semantic crap.
Grade:F
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>On Mar 6, 11:14 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > According to yours as well. Except when it applies to you. Thats
> > rather the point, Brock. You're a hypocrit.
>
> As you noted:
>
> "Your perspective is, by definition, subjective precisely because
> perception requires interpretation and interpretation is subjective."
>
> Except that I don't assert empirical presuppositions:
>
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
is independant of my beliefs".
Either way, its irrelevant since you have already interpreted the
Bible and have a subjective opinion of it as you just demonstrated.
>
> Similarly:
>
> > Unfortunately for Brock, existentialism is precisely what the
> > Westminster Confession relied on in RE-forming the Church of England
> > (emphasis mine).
>
> "Existence precedes essence", is a philosophic concept based on the
> idea of existence without essence. ... It directly and strongly
> rejects many traditional beliefs including religious beliefs that
> humankind is given a knowable purpose by its creator or other
> deity."[1]
>
> This is not a position that I subscribe to, nor is it a position that
> the authors of the Confession articulate.
>
> * To claim that I articulate such an existential position is not
> accurate.
> * To claim that the Confession articulates such an existential
> position is not accurate.
>
> "humans define their own reality", is a philosophic concept that can
> be accurately illustrated by:
>
> "There is no other universe except the human universe, the universe of
> human subjectivity. This relation of transcendence as constitutive of
> man (not in the sense that God is transcendent, but in the sense of
> self-surpassing) with subjectivity (in such a sense that man is not
> shut up in himself but forever present in a human universe) - it is
> this that we call existential humanism. This is humanism, because we
> remind man that there is no legislator but himself; that he himself,
> thus abandoned, must decide for himself; also because we show that it
> is not by turning back upon himself, but always by seeking, beyond
> himself, an aim which is one of liberation or of some particular
> realisation, that man can realize himself as truly human."[2]
>
> * To claim that I articulate such an existential position is not
> accurate.
You use them and hypocritically claim you don't. Your point is moot.
> * To claim that the Confession articulates such an existential
> position is not accurate.
existentialism? Nice.
>
> "man is the measure of all things", is a philosophic concept that
> underpins existential premises. Protagoras may have been one of the
> first to articulate its premises, but is not the last:
>
> "His most famous saying is: "Man is the measure of all things: of
> things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that
> they are not" ... Plato also ascribes to Protagoras an early form of
> phenomenology,[6] in which what is or appears for a single individual
> is true or real for that individual. Protagoras was a proponent of
> agnosticism. In his lost work, On the Gods, he wrote: "Concerning the
> gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what
> sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the
> brevity of human life""[3]
>
> * To claim that I articulate such an existential position is not
> accurate.
> * To claim that the Confession articulates such an existential
> position is not accurate.
principles of existentialism while denying existentialism. Nice.
>
> "God is dead" is one of the most famous existential premises
> articulated by Nietzsche.
>
> "The death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to
> believe in any such cosmic order since they themselves no longer
> recognize it. The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to
> the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a
> rejection of absolute values themselves -- to the rejection of belief
> in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all
> individuals"[4]
>
> * To claim that I articulate such an existential position is not
> accurate.
> * To claim that the Confession articulates such an existential
> position is not accurate.
>
> Jean-Paul Sarte famously commented on the nature of his
> existentialism:
>
> "Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares
> with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least
> one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which
> exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is
> man or, as Heidegger has it, the human reality. What do we mean by
> saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all
> exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world - and defines
> himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not
> definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be
> anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of
> himself."[5]
>
> * To claim that I articulate such an existential position is not
> accurate.
> * To claim that the Confession articulates such an existential
> position is not accurate.
>
> > As a rhetorical question, why would one need a
> > reformation of "objective truth"?
>
> The authors of the Confession did not claim they were reforming
> "objective truth". In fact, "reformation", like other labels used in
> this discussion, is largely a subjective categorization that is useful
> where it is useful, but has limitations.
correct, Mr. Hypocrit.
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>conclusion, it is a challenge to the existential presupposition. For
> other argumentation as invalid because he says they rely on
> "existential premises".
argumentation. I do dismiss those arguments that rely on existential
existential positions, and have related how positions in the forum
relate to the classical positions, including:
* existence precedes essence
* humans define their own reality
* man is the measure of all things
* God is dead
* existentialism is a humanism
"humankind is not the measure of all things"
You said:
"The aim of this post is to discredit Crock by
showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth"
I said:
"In your rush to label the Confession as subjective, you've
oversimplified significantly"
Frankly, "The Confession interprets the Bible" is a statement that is
not well qualified. It is not clear exactly how you believe the
Confession interprets the Bible. If the definition for interpretation
"a mental representation of the meaning or significance of something"
is meant, then strictly speaking, the Confession is not a mental
representation, its a written document. More informally, the
Confession as a document may be related to mental representations used
by the authors, but the nature of that relationship is not
established, nor how the propositions of Confession necessarily are
Brock
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 7, 7:44 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 11:07 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 10:44 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 3, 9:02 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 3, 2008, at 9:04 AM, scooter wrote:
>
> > > > > None of this is relevant
>
> > > > Its very relevant. You claim the Confession is "existential". The
> > > > Confession does not articulate "existential" premises, in fact, it
> > > > articulates premises that are considered to be against existentialism.
> > > > Of course, if you claim the Confession is existential because the
> > > > process used to produce it, then you are simply begging the question.
>
> Irrelevant. The Confession relies on existentialism to articulate its
> position.
> Unfortunately for Brock, existentialism is precisely what the
> Westminster Confession relied on in RE-forming the Church of England
> (emphasis mine).
"Existence precedes essence", is a philosophic concept based on the
idea of existence without essence. ... It directly and strongly
rejects many traditional beliefs including religious beliefs that
humankind is given a knowable purpose by its creator or other
deity."[1]
the authors of the Confession articulate.
accurate.
position is not accurate.
be accurately illustrated by:
"There is no other universe except the human universe, the universe of
human subjectivity. This relation of transcendence as constitutive of
man (not in the sense that God is transcendent, but in the sense of
self-surpassing) with subjectivity (in such a sense that man is not
shut up in himself but forever present in a human universe) - it is
this that we call existential humanism. This is humanism, because we
remind man that there is no legislator but himself; that he himself,
thus abandoned, must decide for himself; also because we show that it
is not by turning back upon himself, but always by seeking, beyond
himself, an aim which is one of liberation or of some particular
realisation, that man can realize himself as truly human."[2]
accurate.
position is not accurate.
underpins existential premises. Protagoras may have been one of the
first to articulate its premises, but is not the last:
things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that
they are not" ... Plato also ascribes to Protagoras an early form of
phenomenology,[6] in which what is or appears for a single individual
is true or real for that individual. Protagoras was a proponent of
agnosticism. In his lost work, On the Gods, he wrote: "Concerning the
gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what
sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the
brevity of human life""[3]
accurate.
position is not accurate.
articulated by Nietzsche.
believe in any such cosmic order since they themselves no longer
recognize it. The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to
the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a
rejection of absolute values themselves -- to the rejection of belief
in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all
individuals"[4]
accurate.
position is not accurate.
existentialism:
with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least
one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which
exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is
man or, as Heidegger has it, the human reality. What do we mean by
saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all
exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world - and defines
himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not
definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be
anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of
himself."[5]
accurate.
position is not accurate.
> > > objectively true. In fact, in cannot even be used as a reference
> > > precisely because its an interpretation based on existential premises
> > > of observation. The "divines" employ the very existential method of
> > > interpreting the Bible. By your own words, The Confession is
> > > "untenable."
>
> > Yes, as I've said, the labels are as useful as they are, but not more
> > than that. But we're back to the weakness of your original position,
> > as I've noted:
>
> > > Too, Crock likes to dismiss all
> > > other argumentation as invalid because he says they rely on
> > > "existential premises".
>
> > Not all other argumentation. Simply those arguments that do rely on
> > existential premises. I have articulated positions against many of
> > the classic existential positions, and have related how positions in
> > the forum relate to the classical positions, including:
>
> > * existence precedes essence
> > * humans define their own reality
> > * man is the measure of all things
> > * God is dead
> > * existentialism is a humanism
>
> These are all arguments based on existentialism and thereofre are self-
> defeating and irrelevant.
>
>
>
> > > > I'm happy to note in response:
>
> > > > Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>
> Thats a conclusion based on existentialism and is irrelevant to the
> topic at hand, anyway.
"The Confession cannot be "objectively true" because it is
an interpretation of the Bible. Written in the mid 17th century, it is
an interpretation that is not even in the social or cultural context
of 1st century Middle East."
We can clearly see that you are initiating the appeal to unspecified
labels (the abuse of which is an existential presumption).
> > > Begs the question and is irrelevant. The Confession draws its feeble
> > > "summary" from the Bible. Irrelevant because its an interpretation and
> > > more precisely because "humans" measured it.
>
> > "I did not label the Confession as subjective."
>
> > "The aim of this post is to discredit Crock by
> > showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth"
>
> > My response is to note it goes back to an invalid assertion in your
> > original position:
>
> > While I'm glad to note that "The Confession was written in 17th
> > century England" is true; it does not support the claim made by "The
> > cultural context of 17th century England is not the same as 1st
> > Century Middle East". Of course, "The cultural context of 17th
> > century England is not the same as 1st Century Middle East" is not
> > specific enough to be useful. Cultural contexts may not be identical
> > in all ways, but may be similar in many. Certainly, there are
> > differences in language, differences in prevailing political theories,
> > etc. But there are similarities also, including many of the
> > fundamental problems of humanity: food, shelter, a need to belong,
> > social and behavioral pressures, etc.
>
> Irrelevant
your first post in the thread. :)
Well, I believe you've taken my point that it is you that brought up
the cultural
differences initially. Of course, it certainly is my point that you
simply created the cultural differences as an arbitrary categorization
device.
>
>
>
>
>
> > This still leaves a problem with your statement "Because the cultural
> > contexts are not the same the Confession is an interpretation", which
> > is an assertion that some unspecified property of cultural contexts
> > makes the contents of the Confession an interpretation; Before going
> > further, I believe it is necessary to specify the unspecified property
> > and quantify what about it disqualifies the Confession from "objective
> > truth". Further, you introduce another source of error with the claim
> > "interpretations universally distort objective reality", since
> > "interpretations universally distort objective reality" is an
> > assertion made that interpretations are not objective because they
> > distort; but not specified is the nature of the distortion. Further,
> > there is no reason to presume that the nature of distortion of any
> > "mental representation" (interpretation) necessarily relates to the
> > Confession in a manner that universally disqualifies the "objective
> > truth" of the propositions in the Confession. Finally, there is no
> > stated reason why it is valid to presume that the distortion is
> > universal.
>
> Irrelevant
they have limitations. And further:
> Having said that, how does that effect the veracity of the Bible? Even
> if one believes the "propositions of Bible are objectivly true" (which
> they are not), the Confession is an interpretation of the Bible and
> thus a distortion of percieved "objective truth" (begs the question as
> to why there is a need for such a document if the Bible is already
* how does the "interpretive" nature of the Confession affect the
veracity of the Bible?
But note that you leave the question unanswered and unspecified. And
by this example of association with subjectivity, one can presume that
the answer is that the Confession cannot adequately represent the
Bible. But, by the other arguments presented here, this is an overly
simplistic and not tenable claim. So this claim, stated
interrogatively, that the Confession cannot adequately represent the
Bible is based upon premises that are over-simplistic and not
accurate.
> > contexts are not the same the Confession is an interpretation",
> > "interpretations universally distort objective reality" and
> > "Interpretations are not objectively true", you cannot represent that
> > "The Confession is not objectively true"
>
> Of course I can and I have. So, your argumen from existentialism is
> irrelevant.
as far as labels do. But again, the most interesting point from my
perspective is the limited nature of your attempt to rely upon them to
establish your claims.
As you've noted:
> Your perspective is, by definition, subjective precisely because
> perception requires interpretation and interpretation is subjective.
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 7, 7:40 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 11:05 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 9:04 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > None of this is relevant
>
> > In fact, my participation is not particularly relevant. You seem
> > quite able to perpetuate a position for me and then respond to it.
> > Some folks call that a scarecrow.
>
> > "Your position is quite clear and it's still irrelevant."
>
> > I know you believe it to be so. But you're by your own admission
> > biased on this issue.
>
> > "Bias is irrelevant."
>
> > Your bias is very relevant in discussing your conclusions. For
> > example, as I've shown with:
>
> Bias is irrelevant to the truth. So, my bias is irrelevant and
> therefore so is your objection.
For example:
You said:
"The aim of this post is to discredit Crock by
showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth"
"In your rush to label the Confession as subjective, you've
oversimplified significantly"
Checking it again, it surely seems relevant.
Frankly, "The Confession interprets the Bible" is a statement that is
not well qualified. It is not clear exactly how you believe the
Confession interprets the Bible. If the definition for interpretation
"a mental representation of the meaning or significance of something"
is meant, then strictly speaking, the Confession is not a mental
representation, its a written document. More informally, the
Confession as a document may be related to mental representations used
by the authors, but the nature of that relationship is not
established, nor how the propositions of Confession necessarily are
limited by that relationship. Therefore, "The Confession interprets
Of course, with "interpretations universally distort objective
reality" the assertion is made that interpretations are not objective
distortion. Further, there is no reason to presume that the nature of
distortion of any "mental representation" (interpretation) necessarily
there is no stated reason why it is valid to presume that the
objectively true" is not specific enough to make a valid determination
the mentioned limitations with "The Confession interprets the Bible",
objectively true" fails to be established.
Regards,
Brock
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 7, 7:37 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 11:03 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Your beliefs are independant of the fact that its been laid to
> > rest.
>
> > > Well, I do not assent. :)
>
> > Your assention or not is irrelevant.
>
> > Going by your eristic analysis, it never will be either.
>
> > Irrelevant.
>
> > I don't think you do well to assert that. I think it even goes back
> > to the faults in your initial analysis, with which I'm glad to
> > clarify my position with:
>
> What you think is irrelevant.
differences initially. Of course, it certainly is my point that you
simply created the cultural differences as an arbitrary categorization
> I never created those categories. Those are a matter of historical
> record and are not simply arbitrarily assigned.
But as you said:
"The Confession cannot be "objectively true" because it is
an interpretation of the Bible. Written in the mid 17th century, it is
an interpretation that is not even in the social or cultural context
of 1st century Middle East."
We can clearly see that you are initiating the appeal to unspecified
"cultural contexts".
germane.
> > > As we all know, Crock of Shit Organ frequently relies on this document
> > > and presents it as "objective truth"
>
> > More accurately:
>
> > 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> > 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> > 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> ...from a subjective Calvinistic point of view.
* how does the "interpretive" nature of the Confession affect the
veracity of the Bible?
that the answer is that the Confession cannot adequately represent the
Bible. But, by the other arguments presented here, this is an overly
simplistic and not tenable claim. So this claim, stated
interrogatively, that the Confession cannot adequately represent the
Bible is based upon premises that are over-simplistic and not
accurate.
Brock
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Mar 7, 8:10 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 11:14 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > According to yours as well. Except when it applies to you. Thats
> > > rather the point, Brock. You're a hypocrit.
>
> > As you noted:
>
> > "Your perspective is, by definition, subjective precisely because
> > perception requires interpretation and interpretation is subjective."
>
> > Except that I don't assert empirical presuppositions:
>
> Irrelevant. You interpret; you are subjective.
note that they have limitations. I think you could improve in your
understanding of this area also.
> > 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> Thsi statement should more accurately read "The veracity of the Bible
> is independant of my beliefs".
>
> Either way, its irrelevant since you have already interpreted the
> Bible and have a subjective opinion of it as you just demonstrated.
cultural
differences initially. Of course, it certainly is my point that you
simply created the cultural differences as an arbitrary categorization
> I never created those categories. Those are a matter of historical
> record and are not simply arbitrarily assigned.
But as you said:
> "The Confession cannot be "objectively true" because it is
> an interpretation of the Bible. Written in the mid 17th century, it is
> an interpretation that is not even in the social or cultural context
> of 1st century Middle East."
We can clearly see that you are initiating the appeal to unspecified
"cultural contexts".
>
> > > Unfortunately for Brock, existentialism is precisely what the
> > > Westminster Confession relied on in RE-forming the Church of England
> > > (emphasis mine).
>
> > "Existence precedes essence", is a philosophic concept based on the
> > idea of existence without essence. ... It directly and strongly
> > rejects many traditional beliefs including religious beliefs that
> > humankind is given a knowable purpose by its creator or other
> > deity."[1]
>
> Irrelevant.
accurate.
position is not accurate.
> > the authors of the Confession articulate.
>
> Irrelevant. You do subscribe to them despite your complaints.
* To claim that I articulate such an existential position is not
accurate.
position is not accurate.
> > * To claim that I articulate such an existential position is not
> > accurate.
>
> Irrelevant
> > * To claim that the Confession articulates such an existential
> > position is not accurate.
>
> Irrelevant
>
>
>
> > "humans define their own reality", is a philosophic concept that can
> > be accurately illustrated by:
>
> > "There is no other universe except the human universe, the universe of
> > human subjectivity. This relation of transcendence as constitutive of
> > man (not in the sense that God is transcendent, but in the sense of
> > self-surpassing) with subjectivity (in such a sense that man is not
> > shut up in himself but forever present in a human universe) - it is
> > this that we call existential humanism. This is humanism, because we
> > remind man that there is no legislator but himself; that he himself,
> > thus abandoned, must decide for himself; also because we show that it
> > is not by turning back upon himself, but always by seeking, beyond
> > himself, an aim which is one of liberation or of some particular
> > realisation, that man can realize himself as truly human."[2]
>
> All irrelevant
the objective properties of subjective labels to establish your claim
that my claim of objectivity is subjective.
> > * To claim that I articulate such an existential position is not
> > accurate.
>
> Your arguments are based on existentialist principles of observation.
> You use them and hypocritically claim you don't. Your point is moot.
> > * To claim that the Confession articulates such an existential
> > position is not accurate.
>
> They existentially articulate that they do not subscribe to
> existentialism? Nice.
* To claim that I articulate such an existential position is not
accurate.
position is not accurate.
> > underpins existential premises. Protagoras may have been one of the
> > first to articulate its premises, but is not the last:
>
> Which I have already exposed you as using. That makes you a hypocrit.
> > "His most famous saying is: "Man is the measure of all things: of
> > things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that
> > they are not" ... Plato also ascribes to Protagoras an early form of
> > phenomenology,[6] in which what is or appears for a single individual
> > is true or real for that individual. Protagoras was a proponent of
> > agnosticism. In his lost work, On the Gods, he wrote: "Concerning the
> > gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what
> > sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the
> > brevity of human life""[3]
>
> Irrelevant
* To claim that I articulate such an existential position is not
accurate.
position is not accurate.
> > * To claim that I articulate such an existential position is not
> > accurate.
>
> You already have.
> As a rhetorical question, why would one need a
> reformation of "objective truth"?
The authors of the Confession did not claim they were reforming
"objective truth". In fact, "reformation", like other labels used in
this discussion, is largely a subjective categorization that is useful
where it is useful, but has limitations.
> > position is not accurate.
>
> The entirty of The Confession was written on subscribing to the
> principles of existentialism while denying existentialism. Nice.
standard existential principles, such as:
* existence precedes essence
* humans define their own reality
* man is the measure of all things
* God is dead
* existentialism is a humanism
> > articulated by Nietzsche.
>
> Irrelevant
and the Confession articulated similar positions.
> > "The death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to
> > believe in any such cosmic order since they themselves no longer
> > recognize it. The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to
> > the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a
> > rejection of absolute values themselves -- to the rejection of belief
> > in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all
> > individuals"[4]
>
> Irrelevant
"The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be
believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or
Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof;
and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."
And you can quickly determine that Nietzsche and the Confession do not
articulate the same basis for beliefs.
> > * To claim that I articulate such an existential position is not
> > accurate.
>
> Irrelevant
> > * To claim that the Confession articulates such an existential
> > position is not accurate.
>
> Irrelevant
> > Jean-Paul Sarte famously commented on the nature of his
> > existentialism:
>
> Irrelevant
premises. A study of his thoughts and beliefs contrasted with the
Confession will clearly show the Confession does not articulate
Sartre's existential principles.
> > "Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares
> > with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least
> > one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which
> > exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is
> > man or, as Heidegger has it, the human reality. What do we mean by
> > saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all
> > exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world - and defines
> > himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not
> > definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be
> > anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of
> > himself."[5]
>
> Irrelevant
"We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high
and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the
matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the
consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all
glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's
salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire
perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence
itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full
persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority
thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness
by and with the Word in our hearts"
The basis of belief as articulated by the Confession is quite distinct
from the fundamental principles articulated by Sartre.
> > * To claim that I articulate such an existential position is not
> > accurate.
>
> Irrelevant
> > * To claim that the Confession articulates such an existential
> > position is not accurate.
>
> Irrelevant
> > > As a rhetorical question, why would one need a
> > > reformation of "objective truth"?
>
> > The authors of the Confession did not claim they were reforming
> > "objective truth". In fact, "reformation", like other labels used in
> > this discussion, is largely a subjective categorization that is useful
> > where it is useful, but has limitations.
>
> Yes, like "The Confession" is a subjective categorization. Precisely
> correct, Mr. Hypocrit.
I think its a valued and meaningful contribution to note that it was
called the "reformation" because it was and is a useful historical
categorization. But even useful historical categorizations have
limits. Consider "Calvinism is an interpretation", "Episcopelianism
is an interpretation" and "The Confession is an interpretation" are
here categorized homogeneously as interpretations. But they are not
homogenous. calvinism and episcopelianism are simply un-specified
meta labels that are compared to an historic and specific document.
So any claims leveled at items labeled as interpretations are falsely
treating as homogenous, a collection of items that is heterogeneous.
Then you limit yourself by claiming "interpretations universally
distort objective reality", where the assertion is made that
specified is the nature of the distortion. Further, there is no
reason to presume that the nature of distortion of any "mental
representation" (interpretation) necessarily relate to the Confession
in a manner that universally disqualifies the "objective truth" of the
propositions in the Confession. Finally, there is no stated reason
course, relevant to the analysis is the discussion on
interpretations[6]; in summary, "Interpretations are not objectively
"Calvinism is an interpretation", "Episcopelianism is an
interpretation" and "The Confession is an interpretation",
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>your first post in the thread. :)
Brock
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>the authors of the Confession articulate.
Brock
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>its self-defeating and makes you a hypocrit.
>
> > Too, Crock likes to dismiss all
> > other argumentation as invalid because he says they rely on
> > "existential premises".
>
> I claim that is not valid, I do not simply dismiss all other
> argumentation. I do dismiss those arguments that rely on existential
> premises. I have articulated positions against many of the classic
> existential positions, and have related how positions in the forum
> relate to the classical positions, including:
>
> * existence precedes essence
> * humans define their own reality
> * man is the measure of all things
> * God is dead
> * existentialism is a humanism
>
> and like to note especially:
>
> "humankind is not the measure of all things"
hypocrit.
interpretation using existential means. That makes you a hypocrit.
>
> > > Frankly, "The Confession interprets the Bible" is a statement that is
> > > not well qualified. It is not clear exactly how you believe the
> > > Confession interprets the Bible. If the definition for interpretation
> > > "a mental representation of the meaning or significance of something"
> > > is meant, then strictly speaking, the Confession is not a mental
> > > representation, its a written document. More informally, the
> > > Confession as a document may be related to mental representations used
> > > by the authors, but the nature of that relationship is not
> > > established, nor how the propositions of Confession necessarily are
> > > limited by that relationship.
>
> > Irrelevant.
>
> Your lack of qualification for the statement is relevant. I think its
> very relevant:
>
> You said:
>
> "The aim of this post is to discredit Crock by
> showing that 1) The Confession of Faith is not objective truth"
>
> I said:
>
> "In your rush to label the Confession as subjective, you've
> oversimplified significantly"
>
> Checking it again, it surely seems relevant.
again another interpretation using existential means. That makes you a
hypocrit.
<snipping extensive existential hypocracy>
> > That's a conclusion drawn through inference and existentialism. A very
> > poor and weakly argued conclusion substantiated by semantic crap.
> > Grade:F
>
> Except that I don't assert empirical presuppositions:
>
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
makes it existential and you a hypocrit.