A short explaination of the human-nature

[Derf]

The comment you are reply to: "It's not the same thing at all." is the final sentence in this post:

Which is a continuation of my commentary on this post:


I was making the statement of fact that you and others who claim that the Mount Saint Helens' eruption is evidence that the Grand Canyon can be formed in a short amount of time is bogus and any attempts to explain it use bogus science.

The first example does not show that sediments can form from a catastophic flood, only that weight density between different particles has them settle at different layers.

Right. Which shows that sediments can form from a flood. Do you know what "sediments" means?

The second example is even worse since the Mount Saint Helens eruption was that: a volcanic eruption, leading to a massive shift of silt

So you're admitting that massive shifts of silt can happen in a small amount of time? And develop layers that in other settings would be interpreted as thousands or millions of years?

And that a (natural) dam break could carve through those layers in a short amout of time, leaving behind...

to form something that physically looks like a canyon

...something that physically looks like a canyon?

I think you've made my point better than I could.

but it isn't.

How can something "physically look like a canyon" but not be a canyon? Is it a canyon only when you say it is?

You don't know science.

You don't seem to understand what you yourself wrote.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Right. Which shows that sediments can form from a flood. Do you know what "sediments" means?

Matter, organic or inorganic, left over by the movement of erosion via water, wind or gravity.

So you're admitting that massive shifts of silt can happen in a small amount of time? And develop layers that in other settings would be interpreted as thousands or millions of years?

And that a (natural) dam break could carve through those layers in a short amout of time, leaving behind...

Except that the Grand Canyon does not show any such features of if being from a catastrophic even like the Mount Saint Helens' eruption. Catastrophic events do not leave meanders in waterways.

...something that physically looks like a canyon?

I think you've made my point better than I could.

How can something "physically look like a canyon" but not be a canyon? Is it a canyon only when you say it is?

Because it can look like a canyon but not be a canyon. Duh.
A canyon is a specific thing and the rents left by the volcanic eruption of Mount Saint Helens are not canyons. Canyon are formed through the process of erosion via water flowing through the path of least resistance through soluble rock, eroding it away through time and then leaving a sheer or near sheer sided cliffs as edges made from harder rock that is not soluble. You will also find canyons on very level terrain with minor differences in elevation.

Your Mount Saint Helens' 'canyons' are silt, earth, and pyroclastic flow, along with gravel and rocks and leftover ash, all of which are loose and easily washed away material, which is also on a steep slope, about 30 to 35 degrees, which is not a landscape feature that will allow a canyon to form. Everything just literally gets washed downwads. Some harder and more compacted material will remain, yes, but in nowhere near enough amounts for a canyon to even begin to form.

You don't seem to understand what you yourself wrote.

Takes one to know one.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The main key for canyons and rivers is always the meanders.

 

[Derf]

Matter, organic or inorganic, left over by the movement of erosion via water, wind or gravity.

Go look at a non-geologic definition, since the geologic term was borrowed from the other. But by and large, sediments are eroded and carried by water, especially if they form horizontal, evenly distributed layers.

Except that the Grand Canyon does not show any such features of if being from a catastrophic even like the Mount Saint Helens' eruption.

Sure it does. Water cutting through layers of sediment.

Catastrophic events do not leave meanders in waterways.

Depends, as you point out, on the slope it traverses. The shallower the slope, the more the water meanders. Canyons cut into steeper terrain do exist, and they don't meander much.

Because it can look like a canyon but not be a canyon. Duh.

If it quacks like a duck...

What amazes me is that you tell me you have to know how a canyon was created for it to be called a canyon...as if you were able to observe the Grand Canyon being formed.

A canyon is a specific thing and the rents left by the volcanic eruption of Mount Saint Helens are not canyons.

Who was talking about rents? I was talking about water erosion through deposited material that accumulated due to the eruption, not the rents.

Canyon are formed through the process of erosion via water flowing through the path of least resistance through soluble rock, eroding it away through time

Which time can be shortened with greater flow of water. And it certainly fits the description of the Toutle River area.

and then leaving a sheer or near sheer sided cliffs as edges made from harder rock that is not soluble.

All such rock is soluble; that's how the river cuts through it, whether it takes a long time or short. Less hardened material would take less time to carve, so the hardness today is not an indicator of the hardness when the canyon carving first started.

You will also find canyons on very level terrain with minor differences in elevation.

Have you ever seen a box canyon? It's cut into a steep hillside. Are you just making this stuff up as you go? Sounds like it.

Your Mount Saint Helens' 'canyons' are silt, earth, and pyroclastic flow, along with gravel and rocks and leftover ash, all of which are loose and easily washed away material,

Perhaps. Why is that different from what larger canyons might once have been?

which is also on a steep slope, about 30 to 35 degrees, which is not a landscape feature that will allow a canyon to form. Everything just literally gets washed downwads. Some harder and more compacted material will remain, yes, but in nowhere near enough amounts for a canyon to even begin to form.

Have you looked at it at all? The north fork of the Toutle River sure doesn't look like it's traveling through 35% grade. Or did I misunderstand you? But there's no specific grade requirement for any canyon definition I've ever seen.

Takes one to know one.

I thought you had to be older than third grade to post here.

 

[Derf]

I'll just answer that with a very basic response: Sodom and Gomorrah are the names of two cities in the narrative of Genesis. No one knows for sure about their actual remains in the world and whether they have been (or will yet be) identified with certainty by archaeologists. In the meantime, we can all wonder about it and mull over their possible historical significance.

I agree. Sounds like you believe they actually existed, at least.

Their value to us as literary remnants in the book of Genesis is in their prophetic meaning.

Not if someone actually digs them up eventually. It tends to validate those scriptures.

It's the same with how we'll evaluate the value of the narratives about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, even up to Joseph. In that endeaver, I'd probably read something by someone like Old Testament scholar, Gordon J. Wenham or Dru Johnson, among many, many others.

You sound so dogmatic in your conviction.

On that particular point, we'll all have to decide which interpretive camp we're in as Christians, won't we?

Seems like it would be better to reqd it first for what it says, than only read it after we've already devided what it means.

Comparing Interpretations of Genesis 1 - BioLogos

If God’s purposes in Genesis 1 did not include teaching scientific facts to the Israelites, then we shouldn't look here for scientific information today.

biologos.org

In addition to whether we Christians each go in for a concordist or non-concordist, literal or metaphorical/poetic interpretation, we'll also have to face off against aspects of robust forms of Higher Criticism of the Bible.

We will? Why is that'

I suggest we do so by taking them head on with academic intelligence and scholarly scrutiny. We don't want to bury our heads in the sand and ignore issues within the biblical texts that might be cited by biblical skeptics and its detractors for the sake of giving the appearance of "pure faith." On the other hand, we also don't want to walk under a cloud of suspicion or fear that all or anything we read in the Bible is somehow thoroughly doubtful simply because one bit of the bible happens to not be true in the way that we assumed or were told it "has to be."

Certainly we shouldn't cling to our interpretations over other possible ones just because we thought of those (or heard them) first.

I refuse to do either: I won't stick my head in the sand and I won't walk under the skeptic's cloud. Of course, I always refuse to walk the typical half-baked byways of either fundamentalist Christians or throughly skeptical atheists.

Is this the same guy who seemed to get so offended by a brother questioning his view? "Half-baked"?

It's the advantange I have by being a philosopher and not a theologian.

"Everybody is a theologian," Tom mused philosophically.

I don't have to rely on just one denomination or school of Christian thought;

And I do?

I can even be ecclectic in my philosophical evaluations, and still be more than able to look to the Author and Finisher of our faith, just like anyone else.

True, except if you look at Him assuming His knowledge of the creation of the universe was limited to possible untruths pervasive during His time period.

I disagree with this, for epistemological reasons. I see engagement with the Bible as an ongoing opportunity for conceptual exploration and clarification. ... so, I'd be slow to assume any of us needs to go around with prophetic aplomb and admonishing every Sam, Sally or Ted who doesn't accord with the theology of our favorite local church.

Who's doing that?

I disagree. I think science and biblical theology are two non-overlapping magisteria. It's best not to mix them much, if at all.

If God created the heavens and the earth, and science is searching for a Godless beginning (and basing its conclusions on that assumption), they are already mixed, and no amount of sticking one's head in the sand, to borrow your phraseology, will unmix them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Go look at a non-geologic definition, since the geologic term was borrowed from the other. But by and large, sediments are eroded and carried by water, especially if they form horizontal, evenly distributed layers.

Sure it does. Water cutting through layers of sediment.


Depends, as you point out, on the slope it traverses. The shallower the slope, the more the water meanders. Canyons cut into steeper terrain do exist, and they don't meander much.

If it quacks like a duck...

What amazes me is that you tell me you have to know how a canyon was created for it to be called a canyon...as if you were able to observe the Grand Canyon being formed.


Who was talking about rents? I was talking about water erosion through deposited material that accumulated due to the eruption, not the rents.

Which time can be shortened with greater flow of water. And it certainly fits the description of the Toutle River area.

All such rock is soluble; that's how the river cuts through it, whether it takes a long time or short. Less hardened material would take less time to carve, so the hardness today is not an indicator of the hardness when the canyon carving first started.


Have you ever seen a box canyon? It's cut into a steep hillside. Are you just making this stuff up as you go? Sounds like it.

Perhaps. Why is that different from what larger canyons might once have been?

Have you looked at it at all? The north fork of the Toutle River sure doesn't look like it's traveling through 35% grade. Or did I misunderstand you? But there's no specific grade requirement for any canyon definition I've ever seen.


I thought you had to be older than third grade to post here.

Okay, since you seem to know everything about anything, explain what catastophic process (erosion is not considered a catastrophic process by any geologist since it is a slow gradual process, not a sudden and violent one) formed the Grand Canyon, 6,000 feet deep, 277 miles long, 18 miles wide, with meanders, through primarily sandstone and mudstonee.

Because all I see above is waffling, no evidence to make me accept what you're saying.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree. Sounds like you believe they actually existed, at least.

Yes. I don't write it off. I may be existential in my initial outlook, and I may be moderately skeptical where applying critical thinking and logic and my entire education to the entire corpus of the Bible and to the institutions of Christian faith are concerned, but that doesn't mean that I'm not "fair" in my thinking. I can give the Biblical text at least the benefit of the doubt over and against total skepticism.

Besides, my own views on historiography are such that I take each chapter of the Bible in a "fragmentary" way rather than a "unified" way. Although I may assess one bit of the Bible here or there as being more representational (or poetic, etc) than another bit doesn't mean that the important bits stand or fall in the same identical way. All human writing is representational in varying degrees, even that of the Bible.

So.....................................................yeah. It is possible for me to think that Evolution took place AND that after maybe chapter 11 in Genesis, I can pick up with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and evaluate their narratives as possibly being a little stronger in their ontological essence, a little more believable, a little more historical than chapters 1 thru 11. Obviously, the possible existence of Sodom and Gomorrah would also coincide with considerations about the possible existence of Abraham.

The plausibility of the contents of the Bible, in my view, becomes somewhat more so as we move further along in the chronological origins of each individual book of the Old Testament. Then, eventually, we get to the writings of the New Testament, all written in a newer era (i.e. the Roman Era----not our modern 21st century scientific era, of course, but still newer than the "old.")

Note: My considerations of all I've just said above are informed by many sources, but issues pertaining to chapters 1 thru 11 are more or less discussed more concisely in :

Hoffmeier, James K., Gordon John Wenham, and Kenton Sparks. Genesis: History, fiction, or neither?: Three views on the Bible’s earliest chapters. Zondervan Academic, 2015.​

What does that mean? It means that I can have my ontological cake and eat it too; yes, I can "believe" in science on the one hand, but also end up credibly believing that Jesus was (and is) who He said He was: The Lord, The Messiah, The Son of God, verily God, the Son, Second Person of the Trinity, Our redeemer, Our Savior, our Alpha and Omega!

Not if someone actually digs them up eventually. It tends to validate those scriptures.

Right. And I have ZERO problem with the potentiality that someone might actually find Sodom and Gomorrah. I know lately there have been some claims that these cities having been "found." But whether they are truly ever found or not, my faith in Christ doesn't reside upon whether every jot or tittle of the bible----or every city mentioned therein----is or was true in an ultra-concrete verbal fashion.

You sound so dogmatic in your conviction.

Hardly. You're projecting that onto me. I'm too old and too educated and too philosophical to be "dogmatic." I prefer "dynamism" in thought. And it keeps the ol' brain moving along as I get older, too.

Notice here too: dogmatic folks who are truly dogmatic often seem to think it's their job to tell others not only where they go wrong in their thinking but how and when to change that thinking to the "correct thinking." ... you don't actually see me trying to change your mind on things. No, all I'm doing is explaining my viewpoint on things to you; I fully expect you to remain on the epistemic course you're already on.

Seems like it would be better to reqd it first for what it says, than only read it after we've already devided what it means.

How do you know I haven't already done that? As they say, brother: Been there. Done that. Many times. Even long ago.

We will? Why is that'

Because these days, there are interpretive choices that can be made regarding Genesis 1, like those listed in the article that I linked above...)

Certainly we shouldn't cling to our interpretations over other possible ones just because we thought of those (or heard them) first.

Certainly. But in my case your attempted insinuation is going to be grossly misplaced. What do you take me for? A neophyte? My approach is and always has been wholistic and comprehensive, not piecemeal or naive.

Is this the same guy who seemed to get so offended by a brother questioning his view? "Half-baked"?

Sure. Because I'm an existentialist. First. I get tired of the all too typical side-ways, even contentious aspersions people attempt to cast my way. I don't do this to others................................... I darn well expect them to refrain from doing the same to me. Or else, at some point, I will stop being the demuring milk-sop dressed in a white lab coat that I try to be and I will TURN GREEN and MEAN!

"Everybody is a theologian," Tom mused philosophically.

Everyone is a philosopher; but not everyone is a good philosopher or even a good theologian.

And I do?

I don't know about you. Only you know about you. Do you? I allow others to speak for themselves rather than attempting to head them off at the pass with preconceived insinuations.

True, except if you look at Him assuming His knowledge of the creation of the universe was limited to possible untruths pervasive during His time period.

See. Here's the thing about philosophy: It allows for different denotations and conceptual frameworks as to what fully constitutes the essence of "truth." From what I can tell, you are of the position that the essence of "truth" is some one thing. I merely disagree with that, and moreover, I place my focus more upon the essence of "reality." Truth claims are secondary for me and not necessarily, or in all ways, binary in nature.

Who's doing that?

Who is doing that? Lately, just a select number of more conservative Christians who are on a political mission to set the world straight.

If God created the heavens and the earth, and science is searching for a Godless beginning (and basing its conclusions on that assumption), they are already mixed, and no amount of sticking one's head in the sand, to borrow your phraseology, will unmix them.

You're confused. I've spent too much time studying the Philosophy of Science and the Nature of Science to have to keep repeating how praxis can be different between one scientist and another. So, NO................. the mixing of the Bible and Science is a conceptual, hermeneutical choice that people make, one that typically emerges from the extent to which they've understood the various philosophical and competing viewpoints that exist and by which any one of us can choose to frame the possible tensions we think we find between the Bible and Science.

But hey! I understand. If your current understanding about truth is 'binary' in nature, and you feel that's what you have to stick with, then have at it. I'm not going to try to change your mind about the nature of truth, brother! However, I will try to help you understand how I think about "truth."

 

[Derf]

Okay, since you seem to know everything about anything, explain what catastophic process (erosion is not considered a catastrophic process by any geologist since it is a slow gradual process, not a sudden and violent one) formed the Grand Canyon, 6,000 feet deep, 277 miles long, 18 miles wide, with meanders, through primarily sandstone and mudstonee.

First, erosion can be quick. There's nothing in its definition that requires it to be slow.

Second, you seem to have acquiesced on your canyon definition, so thank you.

Third, you acknowledged, maybe without meaning to, that catastrophic processes can form something that physically looks like a canyon.

Fourth, you cannot just assume that the mudstones and sandstones were in a hardened state when the canyon started forming, just because they are currently in a hardened state.

 Fifth, meanders are caused by the slope's effect on the watercourse, not by long periods of time.

 Sixth, the layers visible in the canyon's walls are evidence of catastrophic events, because they lack the kind of topographical perturbations that would naturally occur if the layers took long periods of time to form.

The explanation, then, is that the layers were laid down quickly by a great conflagration, which left large pockets (seas or lakes) of water on the continents, one or more of which were breached and cut the canyon, flowing with large quantities of water early on, reducing eventually to the relative trickle you see today.

Because all I see above is waffling, no evidence to make me accept what you're saying.

It's a story about the formation of something none of us observed, just like your story. We're looking for the story that best fits the evidence available.

One piece of evidence you've overlooked is an eyewitness account of a conflagration big enough to do what we see in the Grand Canyon. That's in Genesis 6-9. It's also in many legends of peoples around the world, though corrupted in the transmission over time.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

First, erosion can be quick. There's nothing in its definition that requires it to be slow.

In the vast majority of cases, it is slow.

Second, you seem to have acquiesced on your canyon definition, so thank you.

I have not acquiesced to it at all.

Third, you acknowledged, maybe without meaning to, that catastrophic processes can form something that physically looks like a canyon.

Something that LOOKS like a canyon does not mean IT IS a canyon.

Fourth, you cannot just assume that the mudstones and sandstones were in a hardened state when the canyon started forming, just because they are currently in a hardened state.

I have no reason not to assume they weren't.

Fifth, meanders are caused by the slope's effect on the watercourse, not by long periods of time.

Wrong. Why do streams meander?
Meanders are produced when water in the stream channel erodes the sediments of an outer bend of a streambank and deposits this and other sediment on subsequent inner bends downstream

 Sixth, the layers visible in the canyon's walls are evidence of catastrophic events, because they lack the kind of topographical perturbations that would naturally occur if the layers took long periods of time to form.

You have no basis for saying that at all.

The explanation, then, is that the layers were laid down quickly by a great conflagration, which left large pockets (seas or lakes) of water on the continents, one or more of which were breached and cut the canyon, flowing with large quantities of water early on, reducing eventually to the relative trickle you see today.

No, that's not the explanation at all. That's just you making a claim which has no scientific basis behind it and anyone with any knowledge of even highschool geography knows to be wrong.

It's a story about the formation of something none of us observed, just like your story. We're looking for the story that best fits the evidence available.

One piece of evidence you've overlooked is an eyewitness account of a conflagration big enough to do what we see in the Grand Canyon. That's in Genesis 6-9. It's also in many legends of peoples around the world, though corrupted in the transmission over time.

The Bible is not evidence at all, it is just a claim, and it says absolutely nothing about the formation of the Grand Canyon at all.

 

[Derf]

If your current understanding about truth is 'binary' in nature,

Is it your current understanding that there is no binary truth? That Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, AND that one can come to the Father without Him?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is it your current understanding that there is no binary truth? That Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, AND that one can come to the Father without Him?

No, that is not my understanding.

My understanding is that the singular term "truth," when used abstractly and in isolation of various contexts from a human vantage point, is all too easily and mistakenly assessed as some binary thing that can be readily recognized as such. That thing---that term----is then often erroneously used to prop up various "truth claims" which are used in will-nilly fashion by whomever has a strong agenda to push, usually a political one. Sometimes, though, an agenda of "truth" even comes in the diverse garbs of theology.

As for specific statements found in the Bible and which pertain to Jesus of Nazareth, if those statements are indeed not false, such as Jesus being the Christ and "the Way, the Truth, and the Life," then their essence resides at a meta-level rather than at a typical pedestrian level of linguistic appraisal and are subject to the problem of the Use of Religious Language.

And being that they reside at a meta-level, in order for those statements to be heard and valued in the mind and heart of a person, not only will additional hermeneutical effort have to be applied to discern them since they will be abstracted from a greater metaphysical [i.e. prophetic] context, but they'll also more importantly require additional illumination by God in and through His Spirit in order to take effect and be accepted.

All of this is prophetic in nature, subject to further spritual relations with the Lord and can't be merely reduced to a binary recognition of a functional linguistic form.

In other words, asserting that "Jesus is Lord" isn't the kind of statement we're going to run through a Truth-Table and deliberate upon via formal logic, readily recognizing it "as what it is," either TRUE OR FALSE. So, we really shouldn't be insisting that it is binary in nature. The interesting thing is that this is the kind of discernment about biblical truth and language that not only philosophers like Pascal, Kierkegaard or Wittegenstein realized, but that also Jesus and His apostle Paul either hinted at via parabolic language or through dialectical instruction.

On a more basic (very basic) level of logic, SEE THE FOLLOWING:

The three types of binary thinking

Understand the three types of binary thinking, followed by three kinds of nuanced thinking that can be used to combat these tempting binary dichotomies.

www.clearerthinking.org

Obviously, there will be some fellow Christians who misunderstand and think that what I've said above allows for and automatically affirms religious pluralism involving World Religions. However, I'd contest and deny this. None of what I've said above necessarily pops open the door for ideas about Meta-Level Religious Pluralism to just come waltzing into the court of Reason with full regalia. No, the contigencies and tensions involved in the debate between Exclusivists, Inclusivists and Universalists in relation to Jesus' identity as Savior of the World are subject to the meta-level considerations I've mentioned above.

 

[Derf]

In the vast majority of cases, it is slow.

And how can you tell that in the Grand Canyon's case it was slow, now that you've admitted you were incorrect about erosion?

I have not acquiesced to it at all.

You have, but we'll let that go for now.

Something that LOOKS like a canyon does not mean IT IS a canyon.

Please explain again how you can be absolutely sure whether a canyon is really a canyon without watching it form.

I have no reason not to assume they weren't.

Do you believe the sandstones and mudstones were always hard?

Wrong. Why do streams meander?
Meanders are produced when water in the stream channel erodes the sediments of an outer bend of a streambank and deposits this and other sediment on subsequent inner bends downstream

Then they don't apply to the Grand Canyon, since the sediment layers are clearly the same within the meanders as without. Your version would look different everywhere the stream gets turned, because of the deposits. I challenge you to find anything like that at the top of the canyon, representing the time when the meanders were established.

You have no basis for saying that at all.

What is your basis for telling me I have no basis? I made a claim, and you are denying it for no provided reason. Sounds like it's your word against mine.

No, that's not the explanation at all. That's just you making a claim which has no scientific basis behind it and anyone with any knowledge of even highschool geography knows to be wrong.

Based on what information? A high school textbook? You mean my printed paper book is wrong and your printed paper book is right? You want to compare my bible against your bible?

The Bible is not evidence at all,

Neither are textbooks, then. Yet you suppose that because someone read some story in a high school textbook, they know how a canyon forms?

it is just a claim, and it says absolutely nothing about the formation of the Grand Canyon at all.

Every historical record is evidence of the event recorded. A record might be true or false, and the event recorded might be factual or fictitious. Just as the standard geological story of the Grand Canyon's formation isn't true just because somebody wrote it down or published it in a textbook. Do you have to judge the evidence to see if it merits belief. Your high school text books are merely claims, according to you.

The bible absolutely talks about the layers visible at the Grand Canyon. It gives an event that explains them.

 

[Derf]

No, that is not my understanding.

My understanding is that the singular term "truth," when used abstractly and in isolation of various contexts from a human vantage point

Which I'm not suggesting we should do.

, is all too easily and mistakenly assessed as some binary thing that can be readily recognized as such. That thing---that term----is then often erroneously used to prop up various "truth claims" which are used in will-nilly fashion by whomever has a strong agenda to push, usually a political one. Sometimes, though, an agenda of "truth" even comes in the diverse garbs of theology.

Again, that's not what im attempting to do. Nor would someone who can recognize truth be afraid of such attempts.

As for specific statements found in the Bible and which pertain to Jesus of Nazareth, if those statements are indeed not false,

You think they might be?

such as Jesus being the Christ and "the Way, the Truth, and the Life," then their essence resides at a meta-level rather than at a typical pedestrian level of linguistic appraisal and are subject to the problem of the Use of Religious Language.

And being that they reside at a meta-level, in order for those statements to be heard and valued in the mind and heart of a person, not only will additional hermeneutical effort have to be applied to discern them since they will be abstracted from a greater metaphysical [i.e. prophetic] context, but they'll also more importantly require additional illumination by God in and through His Spirit in order to take effect and be accepted.

Meaning that the scriptures, along with personal testimony (or "preaching"), is not sufficient for instructing in Godliness? Like here:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV — All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

You are afraid of truth, aren't you.

All of this is prophetic in nature, subject to further spritual relations with the Lord and can't be merely reduced to a binary recognition of a functional linguistic form.

In other words, God's revelation might be false for now, as far as anyone without your level of education might determine, until God explains why it was true all along? If so, then why wouldn't we trust God that His word will eventually be shown to be true, despite current disconnects with science, philosophy, and higher criticism, instead of assuming the more fickle are true and God's word false, even if only for the time being?

And if it turns out it's not true, we would certainly not have lost much.

In other words, asserting that "Jesus is Lord" isn't the kind of statement we're going to run through a Truth-Table and deliberate upon via formal logic, readily recognizing it "as what it is," either TRUE OR FALSE.

How do you recognize something as either true or false without deliberating on it via some kind of logic, formal or otherwise. Like C S Lewis did?
"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice."

So, we really shouldn't be insisting that it is binary in nature.

I'll admit we may not have enough knowledge to determine a thing is either true or false, but that doesn't stop those things in that category from being dichotomously true or false.

The interesting thing is that this is the kind of discernment about biblical truth and language that not only philosophers like Pascal, Kierkegaard or Wittegenstein realized, but that also Jesus and His apostle Paul either hinted at via parabolic language or through dialectical instruction.

Maybe you could offer an example of such hints by Jesus or Paul.

On a more basic (very basic) level of logic, SEE THE FOLLOWING:

The three types of binary thinking

Understand the three types of binary thinking, followed by three kinds of nuanced thinking that can be used to combat these tempting binary dichotomies.

www.clearerthinking.org

My browser barfed on your link.

Obviously, there will be some fellow Christians who misunderstand and think that what I've said above allows for and automatically affirms religious pluralism involving World Religions.

That's not what I got out of it. Rather that you have difficulty distinguishing truth from falsehood.

However, I'd contest and deny this. None of what I've said above necessarily pops open the door for ideas about Meta-Level Religious Pluralism to just come waltzing into the court of Reason with full regalia. No, the contigencies and tensions involved in the debate between Exclusivists, Inclusivists and Universalists in relation to Jesus' identity as Savior of the World are subject to the meta-level considerations I've mentioned above.

It doesn't hurt my pride one bit to admit I have no idea what you mean by that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

.......................... It doesn't hurt my pride one bit to admit I have no idea what you mean by that.

Make sure to check your local mail-box for your invitation to the Dunning-Kruger World Championship Games.

I can see that you'll be a major contestant in those upcoming events. I'll try to cheer you on from the stands.

 

[Derf]

Make sure to check your local mail-box for your invitation to the Dunning-Kruger World Championship Games.

I can see that you'll be a major contestant in those upcoming events. I'll try to cheer you on from the stands.

I think I should be flattered...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

<snip>

I'm not even actually going to bother respdoning. You've done nothing to even give a hint that you know a thing you're talking about. You're arguing from an inscinere position and honestly, you're just a rude individual. You act like you know better than everyone, but honestly, you're just being a troll.

I'm done talking to you.

 

[Derf]

I'm not even actually going to bother respdoning. You've done nothing to even give a hint that you know a thing you're talking about. You're arguing from an inscinere position and honestly, you're just a rude individual. You act like you know better than everyone, but honestly, you're just being a troll.

I'm done talking to you.

Interpretation: "I've got nothing!"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interpretation: "I've got nothing!"

Actually, the problem here is this: you've apparently mistaken the act of doubling down upon your own unmitigated confirmation biases and casting aspersions upon those who disagree with you as "an expression of faith."

But as a fellow brother in Christ, I'd like to offer you the following suggestion: ..............................maybe stop doing that?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Actually, the problem here is this: you've apparently mistaken the act of doubling down upon your own unmitigated confirmation biases and casting aspersions upon those who disagree with you as "an expression of faith."

But as a fellow brother in Christ, I'd like to offer you the following suggestion: ..............................maybe stop doing that?

Got it in one and a lot more eloquent too.

 

[Derf]

Actually, the problem here is this: you've apparently mistaken the act of doubling down upon your own unmitigated confirmation biases and casting aspersions upon those who disagree with you as "an expression of faith."

I have? I'm discussing actual ideas about formation of the Grand Canyon with him. He challenged me to present my view. I did. Then he takes his ball and goes home. Of course I would double down on my view when asked to explain it.

But as a fellow brother in Christ, I'd like to offer you the following suggestion: ..............................maybe stop doing that?

Stop presenting a view of the world that aligns with the bible when the evidence presented against it is pure bluster? No wonder you're afraid of truth. Grow a backbone, Phil.