Posted on 07/05/2011 7:23:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In other words, nothing is knowable?
Is the sum of 2+2 dependent on a persons interpretation or bias? If a person thinks that 2+2=5 does it equal 5 simply because they think that? Does this persons failing to reason correctly somehow invalidate that 2+2=4 ?
Does understanding why and where 2+2=4 comes from change 2+2=4 in any way?
OK
"Once again, this conflation of the Bible and the Word -- or bibliolatry -- is a modern deviation that essentially concedes all ground to the horizontal flatlanders."
So you're saying that the literal, inspired words by the Word and about the Word may be in error about the true Word?
This campaign shows that the Left is afraid of Rand’s views spreading out into the mainstream.
As a fundamentalist legalist college student, I was fascinated by her critique of progressivism, but turned off by her atheism.
I was given portions of her writings at that time by one of my dorm roommates.
Now thirty years later Glenn Beck has succeeded in spreading her ideas to a “religious” audience.
In Kentucky, Rand Paul has been able to get himself elected which is a sure sign that a libertarian can win an election in a place with a lot of religiously conservative voters.
This campaign reflects the fear of the Left that a limited government philosophy will take hold among the millions of grassroots religious folk out there.
Why then do you ask?
I’m saying that your reason is irrational without defining your Ultimate Authority.
I put quotes around “reason” because people irrationally put reason as their ultimate authority, when in reality, it’s simply an individual authority to the person doing the reasoning.
Would you be happy if they began everything they say with, "Reality is my UA"?
In that sense, reality wouldn’t be objective, because two different people can honestly assert two different realities, so therefore, it would have to be rejected as the ultimate authority. There is no such thing as multiple ultimate authorities.
OK, so how is that different from trying to prove naturalism by using nature?
these are fake christians funded by atheist/socialists to divide up the christian movement as a whole.
God helps those who help themselves.
This is not about ayn rand, this is about replacing God with the church of the socialist state.
So what is being said here?
Matthew 5:17-19 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
"Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Because profound Truth is translogical
It's the difference between the horizontal and the verticle.
Assuming that naturalism can be proven by nature is a translogical, verticle move.
Until you have _actually_ done so, you accept the authority on faith. And so, as a practical matter, you end up taking an awful lot on faith.
Your example of water into wine misfires badly, because Christians accept the historical record of this miracle precisely because of the documentary evidence that the event actually occurred. Your definition of faith as being without evidence is flatly inaccurate. I have faith in things I believe PRECISELY because I have evidence and logic to support them. Otherwise there would be no point in believing in them!
In any event historical claims cannot be directly checked, so everything you believe about past history is based on your faith in your sources - unless you have a time machine. Anti-Christians have some bizarre double-standards in how they evaluate historical data.
Using the term “bibliolatry” is simply another angle on the desire to have man define right and wrong instead of the Word defining it.
I'll also testify to this truly unique and incredible book, simultaneously an autobiography, political history, suspense thriller, courtroom drama, etc., etc. A masterpiece written by a very special man.
Not if they cooperate to test their hypotheses thoroughly. I think you have set up a straw man to knock down. If you are a confirmed subjectivist who insists that reality is unknowable and untestable, being something like platonic "constructs" invented by thought processes, then we have no common ground. And that reminds me why appeals to a particular faith probably don't make converts in modern industrialized societies very quickly (no common ground).
Personally speaking I find it the height of offense for ‘stupid’ minds to ridicule the ONLY Savior of any and ALL. The title alone demonstrates the attempt to find the bottom of a black hole of dark matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.