View this page "Red, Hot, Love"

[Drafterman]

Click on http://groups.google.com/group/debatereligion/web/red-hot-love
- or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
work.

[Brock]

On Jul 29, 10:04 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/debatereligion/web/red-hot-love

> - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
> work.

More accurately, it notes the limitations of peripatetic and
algorithmic means to discern the personhood of God's Holy Spirit.

> How do we know what's hot? How do we know what's red? When I feel heat, or when
> I see the color red, how do I know I am experiencing the same sensations as when you
> feel heat, or when you see red?
>
> The fact of the matter is: I don't, and I can't.

This is not a limitation of "redness", or "heat" or "love". This is a
limitation of sensory perception. Its the wrong tool for the job.
And of course, its the wrong tool because there is no right tool or
algorithm or method or process:

The Holy Spirit is a person.

Put another way, the question is not "What is truth?"; the question
is "Who is truth?". And the answer is Christ:

"Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one
comes to the Father but through Me."[1]

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://nasb.scripturetext.com/john/14.htm v 6

[Belly Bionic]

Once again, Brock, you've submitted a reply that makes no sense.

On Jul 29, 1:12 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 10:04 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/debatereligion/web/red-hot-love
> > - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
> > work.
>
> More accurately, it notes the limitations of peripatetic and
> algorithmic means to discern the personhood of God's Holy Spirit.

More accurately than what? You would appear to be replying to a
link. Links are pretty damn accurate.

> > How do we know what's hot? How do we know what's red? When I feel heat, or when
> > I see the color red, how do I know I am experiencing the same sensations as when you
> > feel heat, or when you see red?
>
> > The fact of the matter is: I don't, and I can't.
>
> This is not a limitation of "redness", or "heat" or "love".  This is a
> limitation of sensory perception.  Its the wrong tool for the job.

Did you even read what Drafterman wrote? He was talking about the
limitations of communication.

> And of course, its the wrong tool because there is no right tool or
> algorithm or method or process:
>
> The Holy Spirit is a person.

If there is no right tool, then how can you know anything about it.
If there is no right tool, then you don't have the right tool, either.

> Put another way, the question is not "What is truth?";  the question
> is "Who is truth?".  And the answer is Christ:

"Who is truth?" is a nonsensical question. A person can't be
"truth." Even if a book tells you a person claimed to be just that.
A person can tell the truth, or know the truth, but they can't *be*
truth.

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Belly Bionic <belly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 1:12 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 29, 10:04 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/debatereligion/web/red-hot-love
>> > - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
>> > work.
>>
>> More accurately, it notes the limitations of peripatetic and
>> algorithmic means to discern the personhood of God's Holy Spirit.
>
>
> More accurately than what? You would appear to be replying to a
> link. Links are pretty damn accurate.

The text:

More accurately, it notes the limitations of peripatetic and
algorithmic means to discern the personhood of God's Holy Spirit.

was meant to come after:

> How do we know what's hot? How do we know what's red? When I feel heat, or when
> I see the color red, how do I know I am experiencing the same sensations as when you
> feel heat, or when you see red?

>> > The fact of the matter is: I don't, and I can't.
>>
>> This is not a limitation of "redness", or "heat" or "love". This is a
>> limitation of sensory perception. Its the wrong tool for the job.
>
> Did you even read what Drafterman wrote? He was talking about the
> limitations of communication.

He also illustrated the limitations of sensory perception.

>
>> And of course, its the wrong tool because there is no right tool or
>> algorithm or method or process:
>>
>> The Holy Spirit is a person.
>
> If there is no right tool, then how can you know anything about it.

There is no algorithm/process/method; instead there is a person:
God's wonderful Holy Spirit! :)

> If there is no right tool, then you don't have the right tool, either.

He's a person: God's Holy Spirit :)

>> Put another way, the question is not "What is truth?"; the question
>> is "Who is truth?". And the answer is Christ:
>
> "Who is truth?" is a nonsensical question. A person can't be
> "truth." Even if a book tells you a person claimed to be just that.
> A person can tell the truth, or know the truth, but they can't *be*
> truth.

Jesus makes it clear:

[Belly Bionic]

On Jul 30, 11:41 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 1:12 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 29, 10:04 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/debatereligion/web/red-hot-love
> >> > - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
> >> > work.
>
> >> More accurately, it notes the limitations of peripatetic and
> >> algorithmic means to discern the personhood of God's Holy Spirit.
>
> > More accurately than what?  You would appear to be replying to a
> > link.  Links are pretty damn accurate.
>
> The text:
>
> More accurately, it notes the limitations of peripatetic and
> algorithmic means to discern the personhood of God's Holy Spirit.
>
> was meant to come after:
>
> > How do we know what's hot? How do we know what's red? When I feel heat, or when
> > I see the color red, how do I know I am experiencing the same sensations as when you
> > feel heat, or when you see red?
> >> > The fact of the matter is: I don't, and I can't.
>
> >> This is not a limitation of "redness", or "heat" or "love".  This is a
> >> limitation of sensory perception.  Its the wrong tool for the job.
>
> > Did you even read what Drafterman wrote?  He was talking about the
> > limitations of communication.
>
> He also illustrated the limitations of sensory perception.

I stand corrected.

> >> And of course, its the wrong tool because there is no right tool or
> >> algorithm or method or process:
>
> >> The Holy Spirit is a person.
>
> > If there is no right tool, then how can you know anything about it.
>
> There is no algorithm/process/method; instead there is a person:
> God's wonderful Holy Spirit! :)
>
> > If there is no right tool, then you don't have the right tool, either.
>
> He's a person:  God's Holy Spirit :)

Repeating it doesn't make it suddenly make sense or become true. I'm
a person. Anyone on this group, if they were to come to Portland,
could meet me and see that I exist with their own eyes. My words can
be recorded either through my personal writings or by recording what I
say. Another person standing in front of my can touch me and verify
that I am solid and real. None of this is true of the "Holy Spirit."
Therefore, it is not a person.

> >> Put another way, the question is not "What is truth?";  the question
> >> is "Who is truth?".  And the answer is Christ:
>
> > "Who is truth?" is a nonsensical question.  A person can't be
> > "truth."  Even if a book tells you a person claimed to be just that.
> > A person can tell the truth, or know the truth, but they can't *be*
> > truth.
>
> Jesus makes it clear:
>
> "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one
> comes to the Father but through Me."[1]

The fact that *someone* wrote it in your magic holy book doesn't mean
that Jesus actually said it. Even assuming that Jesus did say it,
that doesn't make it true. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it
true, either.

> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
> [1]http://nasb.scripturetext.com/john/14.htmv6

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Belly Bionic <belly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> And of course, its the wrong tool because there is no right tool or
>> >> algorithm or method or process:
>>
>> >> The Holy Spirit is a person.
>>
>> > If there is no right tool, then how can you know anything about it.
>>
>> There is no algorithm/process/method; instead there is a person:
>> God's wonderful Holy Spirit! :)
>>
>> > If there is no right tool, then you don't have the right tool, either.
>>
>> He's a person: God's Holy Spirit :)
>
> Repeating it doesn't make it suddenly make sense or become true. I'm
> a person. Anyone on this group, if they were to come to Portland,
> could meet me and see that I exist with their own eyes. My words can
> be recorded either through my personal writings or by recording what I
> say. Another person standing in front of my can touch me and verify
> that I am solid and real. None of this is true of the "Holy Spirit."

5) Divine revelation is not limited by the peripatetic axiom

> Therefore, it is not a person.

The Confession articulates a different perspective:

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance,
power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy
Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son
is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally
proceeding from the Father and the Son."[1]

>
>> >> Put another way, the question is not "What is truth?"; the question
>> >> is "Who is truth?". And the answer is Christ:
>>
>> > "Who is truth?" is a nonsensical question. A person can't be
>> > "truth." Even if a book tells you a person claimed to be just that.
>> > A person can tell the truth, or know the truth, but they can't *be*
>> > truth.
>>
>> Jesus makes it clear:
>>
>> "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one
>> comes to the Father but through Me."[1]
>
> The fact that *someone* wrote it in your magic holy book doesn't mean
> that Jesus actually said it. Even assuming that Jesus did say it,
> that doesn't make it true. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it
> true, either.

It is not the observation that establishes the objective truth of a
matter, rather it is the objective truth of the matter that
establishes the observation. :)

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html

[Dag Yo]

I liked it Drafterman. And if I might suggest an addition to your
page, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that you actually can
prove love -- and you can do so by looking at evidence and signs of
qualities and actions which we would associate with our shared
definition of love.

[Drafterman]

Well, statistically speaking I would imagine it to be a bell curve
with extreme exceptions at both ends. Semi has already tried nit
picking that one on AvC and if he had actually read the paper he would
have seen that I accounted for it.

[Alan Wostenberg]

On Jul 30, 11:32 am, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 29, 1:12 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Put another way, the question is not "What is truth?";  the question
> > is "Who is truth?".  And the answer is Christ:
>

> > "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one
> > comes to the Father but through Me."[1]
>
> "Who is truth?" is a nonsensical question.  A person can't be
> "truth."  Even if a book tells you a person claimed to be just that.
> A person can tell the truth, or know the truth, but they can't *be*
> truth.

It does seem counter-intuitive at first, doesn't it?

Look up at the moon. Would you say the moon is the cause of your
knowledge of the moon? If so, then truth is first in the thing know,
then the knowing subject. What is true of the moon is true of all,
which is why philosophers term truth a transcendental: whatever
exists, is true. Now if truth is in the thing known before the
knowing subject, why can't itruth be a Person?

[Alan Wostenberg]

You wonder:

"How do we know what's hot? How do we know what's red? When I feel
heat, or when I see the color red, how do I know I am experiencing the
same sensations as when you feel heat, or when you see red?
 

The fact of the matter is: I don't, and I can't. I have no way of
knowing how your experience of these sensations compares to my own."

It is true when reporting bodilly sensations, like “I’m hungry”, there
is no comparision. The experience is entirely subjective. But the case
seems entirely different when percieving a shared object -- a red
apple, for example. How would you explain the objectivity of
knowledge, if the object of consciousness is a private sensation?

On Jul 29, 7:04 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/debatereligion/web/red-hot-love

[Dag Yo]

> It is true when reporting bodilly sensations, like “I’m hungry”, there
> is no comparision. The experience is entirely subjective. But the case
> seems entirely different when percieving a shared object -- a red
> apple, for example. How would you explain the objectivity of
> knowledge, if the object of consciousness is a private sensation?

I'm pretty sure you'd just call it an idea/emotion/concept and be done
with it -- unless you think there is more to it than that for some
reason.

[Alan Wostenberg]

On Aug 2, 7:52 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It is true when reporting bodilly sensations, like “I’m hungry”, there
> > is no comparision. The experience is entirely subjective. But the case
> > seems entirely different when percieving a shared object -- a red
> > apple, for example. How would you explain the objectivity of
> > knowledge, if the object of consciousness is a private sensation?
>
> I'm pretty sure you'd just call it an idea/emotion/concept and be done
> with it -- unless you think there is more to it than that for some
> reason.

I mean by "subjective", different for you, different for me. I mean by
"objective" same for me, same for you. Knowledge is said to be
objective. But this is impossible if the object of consciousness is a
private idea/emotion/concept, as drafterman seems to indicate. People
tend to asume, without much reflection, we are aware of the contents
of our minds.

[Drafterman]

On Aug 2, 4:54 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You wonder:
>
> "How do we know what's hot? How do we know what's red? When I feel
> heat, or when I see the color red, how do I know I am experiencing the
> same sensations as when you feel heat, or when you see red?
>  
> The fact of the matter is: I don't, and I can't. I have no way of
> knowing how your experience of these sensations compares to my own."
>
> It is true when reporting bodilly sensations, like “I’m hungry”, there
> is no comparision. The experience is entirely subjective. But the case
> seems entirely different when percieving a shared object -- a red
> apple, for example.  How would you explain the objectivity of
> knowledge, if the object of consciousness is a private sensation?

Physical reference points that act as placeholders making the
subjective sensation irrelevant.

Through communal agreement on what is "red" we can (to a degree)
dissect the object and qualify (if not quantify) its redness.

In short, the existence of an "object" allows the knowledge to become
"objective", naturally.

>
> On Jul 29, 7:04 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/debatereligion/web/red-hot-love
> > - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't

> > work.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -