This topic is now closed to further replies.
By Omegaman 3.0
Now for something completely different, can different ideas be true?
Okay, this video is about ideas concerning the flat earth theory, but . . . I think there is another thing touched upon in it, that is interesting to ponder. Don't get bogged down it the things that the video is trying to inform you of (unless you really want to), but instead, skip ahead to 8 minutes and 36 seconds nto the video.
Consider what the narrator is trying to get accoss about how we know things, and how things can be seen from different perspectives, and different things can seem true from those perspectives, and perhaps, not really be as certain as we think they are.
When you grasp the concept, if you grasp the concept, keep it in mind, next time you engage in or read debates on topics like pre-trib/post-trib eschatology, or Calvinism/Arminianism sotierology, etc.
Above all, don't go crazy being to serious, relax and enjoy our differences.
I am going to set the video here, to play from 8 minutes, 36 seconds forward, if you want to watch the whole thing, you will have to use the video player's slider, to start the video at the beginning.
Fair warning: If you feel tempted to make a discussion/debate of this, especially the topic of the shape of the earth addressed in the video if you watch it from the beginning,, you may find yourself banned from participation in this thread, and your posts deleted. The thread (regardless of the topic that the video author intended) is about how it might be possible, for competing ideas to be true, as long as they are not directly contradictory to each other.
Didn't Boehner retire from his role of Speaker of the House and claim he wanted to work on being a better Christian or Catholic? Or am I remembering incorrectly?
I wrote about a crazy time I had talking with the Director of the FBI about Hillary Clinton’s email investigation, and what came next. It was a faith-building experience!
Dropbox (scanned for viruses)
My Chat with the Head of the FBI about Hillary - Final.pdf
One thing that I find partly appealing in Calvinism is - and I am not sure how to put this - a naturalistic, use of reason to judge religious claims. This is not to deny the centrality of the Bible as a religious text in Calvinism, but to note this use of naturalistic reason in judging religion, including the Bible's meaning. My question here is whether Reformed writers have laid out the premises or justifications for the skeptical, naturalistic aspect of their reasoning?
Please allow me to explain.
First, Reason plays a major role in Calvin's thinking and approach.
Jung S. Rhee writes in John Calvin's Understanding of Human Reason in His Institutes::
An inquiry has been made about why the Reformed theology tends to be rationalistic, scholastic, and philosophical. ... In his article “Calvin’s Theological Method and the Ambiguity in His Theology”, Leith contended that Calvin’s theological methodology was formally biblicism but really rationalism. Calvin’s “implicit confidence in the competence of reason to theologize on the basis of’ the biblical materials” was the crucial factor in his theology. “In the second book of the Institutes Calvin left no doubt about the sinful corruption of reason, and everywhere he rejected reason as an avowed source of theology. However, reason did become a source of his theology through speculation about and organization of the biblical materials. Calvin betrays little doubt as to the full competence of reason in the systematization and rational elaboration of the biblical materials... On the basis of the presupposition that the Bible supplies infallible material for theology and that reason is competent to manipulate and theologize about those materials, Calvin was convinced that he possessed the truth.” In another words, “While he avows the greatest loyalty to Scripture, he actually goes beyond Scripture as a result of an almost irresistible tendency to extrapolate rationally the scriptural data.” According to Leith, this rationalistic tendency has dominated later Calvinism, though Calvin himself was relatively successful to overcome the continuing threat of rationalism.
By Omegaman 3.0
A Gallup poll askes if you would vote for a ______ as president in 2016. Results are surprising (to me) and personally, I am thinking people are less than truthful.
Still, I find it interesting: