A collaborative search for wisdom, at Middle Tennessee State University and beyond...
"The pluralistic form takes for me a stronger hold on reality than any other philosophy I know of, being essentially a social philosophy, a philosophy of 'co'"-William James
I'm sorry .. but did you actually read the bible? apparently not... Cause Jesus never doubted God he doubted his purpose. He didnt want to die but he knew he had to in order to fulfill what GOD had told him to do...
I dont know if i agree with you on this. If Jesus doubted his purpose and his purpose was given to him by God, then wouldn't Jesus be doubting god for giving him that purpose? I think so...
Geoffrey and his groupmates did read the assigned text, and JMH clearly indicates her view that Jesus was a doubter (if it wasn't already clear from her subtitle).
Anyway, the Bible is not a required text in philosophy. Let's avoid ALL CAPS!!! - it looks like shouting.
last week we discussed Bertrand Russell's atomistic views and if it was possible to, as Russell suggests, reconstruct our language to better reflect the structure of the world.
Hey Alex, thanks for posting. In class we discussed Russell and later Wittgenstein's ideas about logic. I thought the idea about the perfect logical language was very interesting, especially since the English language tends to be so illogical.
As for the colorful post above, Sean, there are more ways than one to interpret a work as deep as the Bible. That is why we see so many different denominations in the protestant faith alone. Alex and Jennifer Michael Hecht both have the right to their opinion about the text in question. You do as well, Sean, but where I take offense is when someone calls the intelligence of another into question just because they came to a different conclusion then what you were raised with. Christianity is a living diverse faith and the only way it can remain that way is if we have an open mind to ideas we may not have reached on our own. Thank you for your input, Sean, but please in the future bring your opinions to the table in a less aggressive way. God bless.
I've really nothing to say about last times discussion...I believe it is possible to compartmentalize, categorize, and breakdown the world around you into the smallest step (that step most likely only being agreed upon by you)
As far as reconstructing the language, I whole heartily support it, but don't find it plausible unless forced upon and globally implemented for atleast 10 generations.
I actually say we spend all our time today talking about the Alex's discussion question.
I'm sorry .. but did you actually read the bible? apparently not... Cause Jesus never doubted God he doubted his purpose. He didnt want to die but he knew he had to in order to fulfill what GOD had told him to do...
ReplyDeleteCHECK YOUR RESOURCES PLEASE!!!
I dont know if i agree with you on this. If Jesus doubted his purpose and his purpose was given to him by God, then wouldn't Jesus be doubting god for giving him that purpose? I think so...
DeleteJesus = doubt(purpose) purpose = given by God
Jesus = doubt(God)
SeanShawn,
DeleteGeoffrey and his groupmates did read the assigned text, and JMH clearly indicates her view that Jesus was a doubter (if it wasn't already clear from her subtitle).
Anyway, the Bible is not a required text in philosophy. Let's avoid ALL CAPS!!! - it looks like shouting.
last week we discussed Bertrand Russell's atomistic views and if it was possible to, as Russell suggests, reconstruct our language to better reflect the structure of the world.
ReplyDeleteHey Alex, thanks for posting. In class we discussed Russell and later Wittgenstein's ideas about logic. I thought the idea about the perfect logical language was very interesting, especially since the English language tends to be so illogical.
ReplyDeleteAs for the colorful post above, Sean, there are more ways than one to interpret a work as deep as the Bible. That is why we see so many different denominations in the protestant faith alone. Alex and Jennifer Michael Hecht both have the right to their opinion about the text in question. You do as well, Sean, but where I take offense is when someone calls the intelligence of another into question just because they came to a different conclusion then what you were raised with. Christianity is a living diverse faith and the only way it can remain that way is if we have an open mind to ideas we may not have reached on our own. Thank you for your input, Sean, but please in the future bring your opinions to the table in a less aggressive way. God bless.
Ahhh religious debates! Smells like the internet.
ReplyDeleteI've really nothing to say about last times discussion...I believe it is possible to compartmentalize, categorize, and breakdown the world around you into the smallest step (that step most likely only being agreed upon by you)
As far as reconstructing the language, I whole heartily support it, but don't find it plausible unless forced upon and globally implemented for atleast 10 generations.
I actually say we spend all our time today talking about the Alex's discussion question.