“Time is an illusion” is from Kant.

Framing of a debate is a way people answer to their advantage through their own arguments–sort of like you being so nasty to thos who believe Jesus’ death appeased the wrath of God, and through faith in Christ, one inherits eternal life.

Who can Jesus save? Anyone lighter than a rock too big for God to move.

J–you really ought to read The Rhetoric of Religion by Kenneth Burke. Maybe then all of your answers will be questioned.

JJ, Listen, you show a little trope you badself, antimetabole “strongly you feel about not feeling strongly about things?” Pretty good for a neophyte.

Gotta blast. I’ve real stuff to do.

Yo C. Sorry I missed you at YIT maybe next time like in about a month if the snow ain’t too deep.

Oh J can you see? I’m talking rhetoric–study the stuff–heavens to Murgatroid, don’t be such a futz. The retors define their terms, that is what I mean

Aristotle has a strong influence in the NT, especially the Fruit of the Spirit and the concept of moderation (the Golden Mean). To say it is not is to deny the 800 lb gorilla.

Platonism? Calvinism is highly Platonic, as is Augustine.

I’ll have to think on this one.

In the West, don’t we often interpret things based upon our prior revelatory experience, even though we are often unaware of it? I mean, let’s say our training has been Platonic as opposed to Aristotlian (?) – wouldn’t we tend to interpret things (such as the Bible) in that style, perhaps leading ourselves to different conclusions than someone with another foundation?

Does this make sense?

I doubt if I had much to say that influenced you, Bruce. If anything it is the other way around. But a little bit more explanation might be in order here.

I take you to mean (based mostly on our private discussions) that you no longer hold the Bible to be the sole source of revelation, that certain strongly held Biblical interpretations are often taken as God’s personal declaration (even though many other Christians may disagree with these) and that a rigid ‘defense’ of these interpretations might possibly obscure the Gospel of Jesus.

Close?

Does it bother you that English isn’t Language Prime?

Besides, English is not a language driven by grammar, as is Greek. English is driven by meaning, context, word order, interpretation–in other words English is very Macro in its meaning and usage (which is why people like GWB use such vague generalities and people just nod their heads and flip their channels).

I have many presuppositions, but I prefer them served on a platter of rationality with logic (Kant’s logic) for dessert.

Van Til is a presuppositionalist, as is Francis Schaeffer. C. S. Lewis is a evidentialist.
Both schools use evidence–but the evidentialist is more willing to synthesize new information. Geisler is a combinationalist.

I stand firmly non-committed to the evidentialists–presuppositionalists (like Marvin Rosenthal) argue with too many things taken for granted.

I used to adhere, outwardly, to many things. Then I took a course “Moral Theories in the History of Ethics” in which I read about 60 works by 40 authors. After this, I began a MS in writing. Much of the work in composition theory has been from a postmodern and constructionalist point of view (talk about presuppositions). My world view–in which I was intellectually dishonest–became unglued.

As the quake settles, I still believe in God, and Christ, and the historic Christian doctrines, to a degree. I love Christmas, although the holiday is depressing because of our family situation. I find deep existential wonder in songs like “Angels We have Heard on High (which proports to be the oldest Xmas Carol on record–I shake with wonder at it all) I also shiver with Joy to the World and its restorative/millenial theme.

Easter–gotta believe in the resurrection.

On other stuff, creation, end times, time (illusory as it is) frames, I remain joyously non-committed. I can live with this much better than pretending I’m a fundi.

OOh Chris, is this what you mean?

I prefer the unsolicited sarcasm.
Ambrosia signing off.

Still with the me. Purpose-Driven speculation. So that…we can arrive at a conclusion which is easier to swollow theologically…and you’re against presuppositionalism? Or just other’s presuppositions perhaps…

“My professor of prose says we use Latin Grammar in English, which is really doubly irrelavant since it is really Greek”

What did I miss in this sentence. So we use Greek grammar in english? Or latin used Greek? Huh?

And is this you further demonstrating how strongly you feel about not feeling strongly about things?

A movement from point A to B on a timeline is not provable.

We can prove that a tree grows 1/16 of an inch every 365 solar cycles, but cannot prove that this measures time.

Tenses were invented. I am reading a book on the subject for Rhetoric. It all evolved–linguists such as Noah Webster quantified conventions and sentiments of language, as did Arisotle, and rules were born. It has been so since ancient times.

My professor of prose says we use Latin Grammar in English, which is really doubly irrelavant since it is really Greek–Language is fluid, not static. Spanish has an official clearinghouse, called something like the Imperial Institute of Language (really) that determines proper Spanish, but even that is purely subjective.

Language evolves itself.