tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post7686444229694963433..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: IDQ Flaws Relevant To The Holy SpiritUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34905025919917061142009-01-20T13:28:00.000-05:002009-01-20T13:28:00.000-05:00With regards to :It matters if the representation ...With regards to :It matters if the representation of the Holy Spirit in the Bible is accurate. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Jeff Carter said..."Actually, it’s pretty irrelevant, if I have the Holy Spirit is within me and I can perceive for myself who and what the Holy Spirit is. The encounter with the Holy Spirit is an experience separate from and completely independent from the Bible."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Which is partly why we have so many differing translations and dominations etc ,that also even includes some quite dangerous abusive cults .Some who even go as far as to suggest such things as group suicide etc ,all professing to be led by the holy spirit of course.<BR/><BR/>If jeff is right then i suppose this small problem is little reason to be worried or even have questions.<BR/><BR/>It seems his holy spirit expects this type of mere collateral damage to happen.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78897257293093117402009-01-17T11:58:00.000-05:002009-01-17T11:58:00.000-05:00Jeff wrote, "I am castigated for claiming I know [...Jeff wrote, "I am castigated for claiming I know [the Holy Spirit]."<BR/><BR/>This is "castigated" to you! You've got issues if you think you are being harshly treated. Besides you're not being CRITICIZED for claiming to know the HS, you're being criticized because your beliefs don't appear to be of benefit to us nor supported by any relevant data.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps criticism will lead to a refining of your arguments so that it is congruent with the message of the Holy Spirit. Your message is mostly nonsense to me and leads me further away from Christianity. You appear to have no respect for the knowledge God has given us. You seem to respect only spirit knowledge that is "caught not taught." Knowledge that has nothing to do with the physical world. <BR/><BR/>You're a pseudo-gnostic!Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484481246432964371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85246675961290589522009-01-17T00:33:00.000-05:002009-01-17T00:33:00.000-05:00drive by, didn't want to let this idea go. I disti...drive by, didn't want to let this idea go.<BR/><B><I> I distinguish the Holy Spirit from evil spirits in a way similar to how that same man distinguishes red from blue, or closer yet, crimson from burgundy. <BR/></I></B><BR/>you presume that you can perceive spirits and distinguish them. You know red because while you can see the color, if you had never been taught anything about colors you wouldn't know how anyone sees them. you have used triangulation to form your ideas about red.<BR/><BR/>now colors on the other hand can't be evil or good. IF you perceive spirits, and I'm in no position to say you don't, how do you know they are good or even have any qualities when you can't "triangulate" that data?<BR/><BR/>The mechanism for percieving color is understood to a large degree across categories of various believers, Jews, Muslims, etc, know the infrastructure is there. However I'd like you to point me to the literature describing the infrastructure for perceiving spirits and get You a Jew and a Muslim to agree on it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87423840569786114092009-01-16T23:16:00.000-05:002009-01-16T23:16:00.000-05:00Jeff Carter,You have some nice analogies about the...Jeff Carter,<BR/><BR/>You have some nice analogies about the blind regaining sight and then being able to see in color, but I'm not sure that they are particularly meaningful.<BR/><BR/>For example, how do you know that what you feel is different from what a Muslim feels? a Hindu feels? a Buddhist feels?<BR/><BR/>If the Bible is "completely unnecessary in regards to salvation", why was it written?<BR/><BR/>What do you believe is necessary? Do you believe that a belief in Jesus is necessary? Where else would you expect to learn about him? Without the Bible, how would you interpret your feelings in the same way as you do now?<BR/><BR/>You keep saying you "know what red looks like", but no one has seen any objective evidence of the supernatural or of any specific gods. What is your evidence: what is your "red"?<BR/><BR/>You criticize the use of IDQ for Biblical text, saying that "spiritual works must be given the greatest latitude of all" to "closely parallel the real world". <BR/><BR/>How do you justify this claim?<BR/><BR/>Are the statements of the Bible only applicable to a "spiritual world"?<BR/><BR/>Since I live in the real world, and not the spiritual world, then anything it says must not apply to me, right?<BR/><BR/>The Bible is arguably written for people who live in this world -- why shouldn't it represent things accurately? <BR/><BR/>However, I can still understand why one would say it is entirely spiritual. Therefore, at the very least, the Bible should be internally consistent on spiritual teachings, if it is primarily a spiritual book, right?<BR/><BR/>However, there are many conflicting views of the nature of the Biblical god in the Bible. If it's a spiritual book, it should be accurate about spiritual things, but it's clearly not, because it lacks internal consistency.<BR/><BR/>No, we can't tell if it's "valid", but we can tell if it's consistent. And if it's not consistent, why should we listen to its claims?<BR/><BR/>By the way, I am a poet. Also single, but then again, what do you think I write about? ;)Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13557874636097767152009-01-16T21:36:00.000-05:002009-01-16T21:36:00.000-05:00I love love how you speak for God, knowing his tho...<I>I love love how you speak for God, knowing his thoughts and feelings.</I><BR/><BR/>And I love the way you, admitting that you have never seen the color red, nevertheless presume to tell us what red looks like: "I do think that if God did actually create everything, that he will ultimately be revealed through his creation." I can attempt to describe what the color red looks like to me, since I have since the color red. I don't know what it looks like to others and I don't speak for them. <BR/><BR/>On the one hand I am questioned about how I can possibly know the Spirit and then when I claim I do, I am castigated for claiming I know Him. Are you people so unprincipled as to attack me from both sides, just for the sake of attacking me?<BR/><BR/><I>You seems to think God has revealed things beyond spiritual matters to you.</I><BR/><BR/>Such as what? I'm the one who said that political and legal matters were not the purview of the Bible. <BR/><BR/><I>Do Spirit-filled believers benefit physically from this indwelling. Do they live longer? Suffer from less disease? Have lower rates of mental illness? Have fewer money problems? Lower divorce rates? </I><BR/><BR/>You seemingly imply that these things are the important things and they are not. Only obeying the will of God is. <BR/><BR/><I>The only benefit the Holy Spirit can realistically provide then is spiritual knowledge. If we are to truly worship God is Spirit and Truth, then I think you're missing out on half of the equation.</I><BR/><BR/>And what is Truth? That's not a rhetorical question.<BR/><BR/><I>People that lead ... scientifically principled lives do actually live longer, suffer from less disease, mental illness, etc.</I><BR/><BR/>But that doesn't mean they have eternal life within them. What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but to lose his soul?<BR/><BR/><I>Anthony Flew became a theist because of his belief that God is revealed in DNA. </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, rationalism led Flew to a belief in God, but not Christ. The creation may speak to the existence of God but cannot fully speak to the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ. Only the Spirit can do that.Jeff Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04502136139528025066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83426468550060122982009-01-16T21:32:00.000-05:002009-01-16T21:32:00.000-05:00Jeff,Do you honestly think that you would even hav...Jeff,<BR/><BR/>Do you honestly think that you would even have your "spiritual knowledge" that was "revealed" to you, if you had never even heard of the Bible or Christianity? If so, please demonstrate.<BR/><BR/>Do you consider it to be just a coincidence that your concept of the Holy Spirit happens to match up with the book that you were <I>taught the very concept from</I>? <BR/><BR/>Is this a sort of "well I would have known anyway" sort of rationalization?Philip R Kreychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13079037983351521346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19469541503562275622009-01-16T20:43:00.000-05:002009-01-16T20:43:00.000-05:00Jeff,I love love how you speak for God, knowing hi...Jeff,<BR/><BR/>I love love how you speak for God, knowing his thoughts and feelings. If the Holy Spirit guides, does he only provide guidance on spiritual matters? You seems to think God has revealed things beyond spiritual matters to you. If he provides knowledge beyond the spiritual into the physical, to what end. Do Spirit-filled believers benefit physically from this indwelling. Do they live longer? Suffer from less disease? Have lower rates of mental illness? Have fewer money problems? Lower divorce rates? The answer is none of the above. They show benefit in any of these areas when compared to people of other religions. In fact, they even suffer from addiction at the exact same rate as the general population. <BR/><BR/>The only benefit the Holy Spirit can realistically provide then is spiritual knowledge. If we are to truly worship God is Spirit and Truth, then I think you're missing out on half of the equation. <BR/><BR/>*I, for the most part, think God has revealed truth to mankind and you have chosen to be completely blind to it. His creation reveals who he is and his nature. It is no wonder that science has led to saving more lives than religion ever has because science leads us to God. People that lead godly lives or should I say scientifically principled lives do actually live longer, suffer from less disease, mental illness, etc. I am amazed that people cannot see that the nature of God is revealed in his creation, and science is bringing closer to better understanding God all of the time.<BR/><BR/>* <-That paragraph was written tongue in cheek so to speak just to make a point. I'm actually agnostic about who or what God is. But I do think that if God did actually create everything, that he will ultimately be revealed through his creation. If God didn't create everything, then he won't be revealed. Anthony Flew became a theist because of his belief that God is revealed in DNA.Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484481246432964371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63371381619804946442009-01-16T18:36:00.000-05:002009-01-16T18:36:00.000-05:00How do you know its the "holy spirit" mentioned in...<I>How do you know its the "holy spirit" mentioned in the bible and not some spirit that is deceiving you ….?</I><BR/><BR/>Here is where language is bound to fail us. What I am about to say is too simplistic, but perhaps it will move the conversation forward. The spiritual stands in relation to the soulish and the physical as color to a blind man. It is another dimension altogether. I distinguish the spiritual in a way similar to a once blind man having gained his sight perceives color. I distinguish the Holy Spirit from evil spirits in a way similar to how that same man distinguishes red from blue, or closer yet, crimson from burgundy. <BR/><BR/>What is important is not so much the Holy Spirit mentioned in the Bible but the one who delivered the Gospel of Christ unto me. As I have said before, the Bible is completely unnecessary in regard to salvation.<BR/><BR/><I>In a situation like this where you have two independent data sets for the same record and the data don't match, thats where verification comes in. Which data is right? Well we have to go look. We have to use external sources, we have to use <BR/>Triangulation.</I><BR/><BR/>Why do I need to do this, when I know what red looks like? And if we’re talking about nuanced shades, then perhaps the Bible can be of use. Finally, if I lack wisdom of discernment I ask God and He reveals. Do you use IDQ to help you recognize your spouse or your mother-in-law? <BR/><BR/><I>Whose interpretation of the Holy Spirit is accurate? I know! Why don't we ask the Holy Spirit?</I><BR/><BR/>I know you’re being facetious here, but you’re not off the mark. It makes a great deal of sense to trust the One who gave you (restored) this extra-dimensional sight in the first place. <BR/><BR/><I>you do know that I was a christian for at least 35 years right?</I><BR/><BR/>And I’ve been one for 45 years. What of it?<BR/><BR/><I>I can't believe I have to explain this to you. Those were legal and political examples, but they were values held by christian voters. They committed to those ideas that they found in the bible because they thought " 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;"or do I have a misconception? </I><BR/><BR/>I said what I did to drive home the point that the political realm is of the world, hardly a concern for the Christian. Nevertheless, Christian-American citizens have as much right to voice their opinion through vote as any other American citizen, whether they be of some other religion or atheistic. It matters not why a voter pulls the lever. It’s their vote. I would say, though, if those “Christian” voters think they are following the Spirit simply because they vote in accordance with their interpretation of the Bible, they are misguided. They should listen for the voice of the Spirit instead. <BR/><BR/>Also, note that it says “training in righteousness,” a.k.a. spiritual progress, not political or legal (worldly) endeavors. <BR/><BR/><I>So what is the definition of "inspired by God" as it is used here? Who decides?</I><BR/><BR/>Surely it is not the blind man who shall decide whether the color is crimson or burgundy. What need do I have of the inspired when I can converse directly with the inspirer?<BR/><BR/><I>There are 3.25 billion christians in the world each with their own notion of what or who the holy spirit is. </I><BR/><BR/>For me, there are only two. The one inside me, and the one outside me, that is, the 3.25 billion Christians and how ever many atheists, agnostics etc, voices there are and to which I do not owe the slightest allegiance. I am only concerned about my allegiance to the Holy Spirit within me. <BR/><BR/><I>Then the holy spirit can only be defined as the data that appears in common in all independent sets, and then it may not be correct because it can't be independently verified because it can't be measured or observed. </I><BR/><BR/>This would mean that in order to identify my wife or my mother I would have to interview each every person that had every met her. IDQ in this case is impractical nonsense. <BR/><BR/><I>so how do you "test the spirits"? </I><BR/><BR/>See above. <BR/><BR/><I>You may be deceived by a demon to keep you happy while not gaining your salvation!</I><BR/><BR/>You have to understand that one does not need the Bible to do what I am describing, one needs only the Holy Spirit. Once you have encountered Him, you know exactly what He “looks” or “sounds” like. To equate the Holy Spirit with a demon is to say that this demon has the power to heal or grant sight into the extra-dimensional spiritual realms. Can Satan cast out Satan? If we grant the demon these powers then no epistemological enterprise – Christian or atheistic – can ever be said to be sound.<BR/><BR/><I>I just want to say that I really appreciate the thoughtful dialog, and I feel that sometimes my comment "attitude" can appear flippant. I'm just enjoying the dialog and not watching my tone. so I don't mean to offend. </I><BR/><BR/>No offense taken. We have to use sarcasm or irony sometimes to drive our point home. <BR/><BR/><I>even literature has some level of accuracy regarding the real world.</I><BR/><BR/>Tom Clancy novels purport to be realistic fiction, so it’s important for the writing to closely parallel the real world. Science fiction or fantasy novels are given greater latitude, mythological or poetic works greater latitude still. I am arguing that the spiritual works must be given the greatest latitude of all. <BR/><BR/><I>What is the principle behind this?<BR/>b) the case where the singular intelligence (God) is intentionally hindering and frustrating attempts by some to comprehend Him. </I><BR/><BR/>Well, that’s easy. Evil and unholy men don’t get to approach God and thus they are frustrated in their attempts. <BR/><BR/> akakiwibear said...<BR/><BR/><I>The atheist tendency to apply the scientific method Toby seems to hold dear to a field of study where it is so obviously inappropriate is in my mind clutching at straws.Do you apply the scientific method to art or law or philosophy or even history? </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, exactly my point. Does one take out a Chilton’s Auto Repair Manual to get help on how to plan a date? No, offense guys, but if you’re applying IDQ to everything you must really suck at poetry and romance. <BR/><BR/> <I>You keep claiming that it is inappropriate to apply IDQ to the bible, but you don't really explain why. You just claim that this is so, and then try to cite other fields where you deem the scientific method is inappropriate.</I><BR/><BR/>I don’t know what you’re talking about. I have been quite clear. IDQ is inappropriate for poetry, mythology and persons. Why should it be a criteria for poetry that Yeats be “accurate”, “reliable” and “objective”?<BR/><BR/><I>Just in the case of art alone, I know of all kinds of ways that the scientific method can be applied appropriately, everything from cognitive science to psychology to even physics and chemistry can be appropriately applied to the study of art in a variety of different contexts.</I><BR/><BR/>Of course, but the key question is, to what end? The scientific method CANNOT be applied to art to determine its VALIDITY. Are you saying that IDQ can be used to determine whether the works of Picasso are valid?<BR/><BR/><I>Lee's analysis is most definitely appropriate in context of the bible, in that Christians claim to gain knowledge and information from the bible about how they should live their lives, what they should believe in, how they should vote, etc, and IDQ is a very appropriate means to evaluate the quality this information, as well as the content of the bible itself.</I><BR/><BR/>A Christian has no need to resort to such a thing, since the Holy Spirit is within him. Even the Bible says that the Holy Spirit, not the Bible, will lead you into all truth. <BR/><BR/><I> Why are IDQ rules inappropriate to apply in this context? </I><BR/><BR/>For starters, the basic IDQ criteria calls for accuracy, reliability and objectivity. If these are indeed to be applied to all forms of information then it is not credible because it is beginning with a bias toward accuracy, reliability and objectivity, three things that poetry and mythology have little or no need of. <BR/><BR/><I>Science is our best method for understanding the physical world. </I><BR/><BR/>This should helps us discern, then. The Holy Spirit is not of the physical, objective world. He is of the inner, spiritual world. <BR/> <BR/><I>To me, you are a small minded person if you believe that science shouldn't attempt to understand the spiritual world. </I><BR/><BR/>I didn’t say science shouldn’t, I said it can’t. The former is an ethical declaration, the other a logical one. Science fits the objective world. It is an unfit tool for the spiritual one. That’s nothing personal against science. Buzzsaws are not designed to operate on human beings, which require scapels. <BR/><BR/><I>What is the purpose of the Bible? To reveal the way to salvation.</I><BR/><BR/>Wrong. It is the Holy Spirit’s job to lead to salvation. The Bible has nothing to do with salvation and isn’t even for the unbeliever.<BR/><BR/><I>if god is intentionally hindering and frustrating attempts by some to comprehend then it defeats the purpose and negatively impacts the free will of those being hindered. They cannot make informed decisions</I><BR/><BR/>He constantly frustrates those who think they can “reason” to get to Him, because He doesn’t want to be “figured out”. In fact, no human being wants to be “figured out”. God frustrates to uphold the concept of human dignity for us all. If God could be approached by reason then evil rationalists could find Him. He doesn’t care how smart you are. Instead He is an admirer of holiness and humility.Jeff Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04502136139528025066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71499358081391758082009-01-16T14:12:00.000-05:002009-01-16T14:12:00.000-05:00Everyone - I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue as...Everyone - <BR/>I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue as well. All of you should know I have a full-time day job and will respond ASAP.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>JeffJeff Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04502136139528025066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82036051690233329052009-01-16T08:37:00.000-05:002009-01-16T08:37:00.000-05:00Thanks Lee. This is how I'm teaching my children ...Thanks Lee. This is how I'm teaching my children to view the world. Not through the lens of emotional spirituality and unpredictability. Science by definition is a "systematized knowledge in general." My oldest child is now 6 years old, but he is already well versed in a simplistic form of IDQ. We were at his great grandmother's funeral a couple months back and the minister started preaching about the miracles of Jesus. To which my son,Christian, who was 5 at the time, said, "Really, Jesus can do that?!" After the service we went through a simplistic process of analyzing the data so he could make a logical and informed decision, rather than an illogical and uniformed decision.Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484481246432964371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36844159299370702009-01-16T00:37:00.000-05:002009-01-16T00:37:00.000-05:00Hi akakiwi,one last thing,I see the misapplication...Hi akakiwi,<BR/>one last thing,<BR/><B><I>I see the misapplication of a methodology to a purpose as an act of desperation, a clutching at straws to justify a leap of faith.</I></B><BR/>1. you haven't shown that its misapplied,<BR/>2. nothing so grandiose going on my head, I do it for sport. Its a game of strategy. If you want to get better at it, get some LSAT practice test workbooks.<BR/><BR/>don't believe I do it for sport? go look at my profile and my favorite books.<BR/>The clue is in the section called "about me". Its in the phrase. <BR/>"Would you like to play a game of dialogue?"<BR/>Its been that way ever since I created it and never changed.<BR/><BR/>I don't put any importance on convincing anyone of anything, I just analyze arguments, look for their dependencies and then uproot them.<BR/><BR/>My latest strategy is IDQ, in the future you'll see me applying principles of Evidence and Witness Testimony, communication theory, relationhip theory and if you look back at my articles you can plot what I was reading at the time. maybe you can figure out when I was reading about and taking courses in game theory. ;-)<BR/><BR/>My article is always my opening move. I never let on because I wanted to see how I was received in the community. I haven't gotten slammed yet, but I suppose it will happen some day. Till then, <BR/>ON! ON!<BR/><BR/>My Goal is to get all the dependencies handled to shred Pauls argument in Romans 5. I plotted it out last april, and have been marching towards it ever since. Romans 5 is the Holy Grail...so to speak.<BR/>;-)<BR/><BR/>I have to stop commenting because I'm not making any progress on my other articles.<BR/>see ya!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87834731542797594742009-01-16T00:17:00.000-05:002009-01-16T00:17:00.000-05:00Hi akakiwi,steve and toby have pointed out, you st...Hi akakiwi,<BR/>steve and toby have pointed out, you still haven't said why IDQ principles don't apply.<BR/><BR/>Which theology is accurate? surely there is a purpose to them. some of them must accurately represent what is going on in the real world, otherwise why do it?<BR/><BR/>What does theology use as its point of origin? The Word, The Bible. How can any theology derived from an origin be accurate if its point of origin is not accurate? <BR/><BR/>If i inaccurately report that my dinner guests like mushrooms, and then we a dinner heavy in mushrooms and the guests are miserable, then the originating information was of poor quality to base our inferences on, therefore our result was a bad decision and miserable guests.<BR/><BR/>about science and the arts,<BR/>The DANA foundation applies neuroscience to understand the arts. They have at least three podcasts that I suscribe to.<BR/><BR/>and using the human tendency to mentally, internally, intuitively, unconsciously assign values to things, anything that has a value relative to anything else can be measured.<BR/>its called weighted ranking.<BR/><BR/>would you rather have a BMW or bad back?<BR/>would you rather have a bad back or a bad heart?<BR/>would you rather have a BMW or a Lexus?<BR/>even across categories<BR/>see how that works?<BR/><BR/>When I was a christian I was a facilitator for personal responsibility seminars for young adults and that concept was one of its principles.<BR/><BR/>peoples decisions come from their values, that is the key to irrationality. Emotional reasoning overriding Logical reasoning. some people know what the right thing is but they do it anyway. They overeat, they overdrink, they thrillseek, they mock, they do the right thing for the wrong reason, they do all kinds of things as a result of emotional reasoning.<BR/><BR/>Christians defend all kinds of untenable principles to maintain their belief in a god. In my view, people are unconsciously self-centered, comfort and survival override everything except in extreme cases.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75901056446544414912009-01-15T23:55:00.000-05:002009-01-15T23:55:00.000-05:00"The Scientific Method" is just common sense defin..."The Scientific Method" <BR/>is just common sense defined.<BR/><BR/>If you think about the scientific method, at its heart, it is really no more than the process a child goes through to learn something.<BR/><BR/>kid1: "hey what happens if I do this!"<BR/>kid2: "its gonna [insert event here]"<BR/>kid1: "uh, uh, its gonna [insert different event here]"<BR/>[kids perform action and either verify one or the other or both hypotheses, or something unexpected happens]<BR/><BR/>then, one day, they find a practical purpose for what they learned, and maybe even learn why it happened.<BR/><BR/>Jeff, if you are really a chemical engineer, you have to use Material Safety Data Sheets, and it matters if they are accurate doesn't it? <BR/>It matters for your safety?<BR/>No one is intentionally hindering and frustrating attempts by some to comprehend them are they?<BR/>no<BR/>Any idea why?<BR/>Because it defeats the purpose.<BR/>simple.<BR/><BR/>What is the purpose of the Bible? To reveal the way to salvation.<BR/>if god is intentionally hindering and frustrating attempts by some to comprehend then it defeats the purpose and negatively impacts the free will of those being hindered. They cannot make informed decisions. It defeats the purpose of the great commission. <BR/>now your back to calvinism, which, if true, has no purpose, because its all already decided.<BR/><BR/>but if god knows everything ahead of time then its all has no purpose at T1 in all cases.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46857120859264093172009-01-15T19:12:00.000-05:002009-01-15T19:12:00.000-05:00akakiwibear,The scientific method overlaps all of ...akakiwibear,<BR/><BR/>The scientific method overlaps all of those fields, though perhaps it is less useful in art than the others. Science is our best method for understanding the physical world. While art is a preference to the individual, just as God is, science overlaps this field. For example, we might study genetics or neurology to understand creativity, perception, likes or even artistic aptitudes. To say that science does not overlap into any areas of theology (the non-physical world) is ignorant. Do you believe that the theology has nothing to say about the physical world. Sure you do. Have you ever had an emotion caused by a spiritual event? Then we can use neurology to better understand that spiritual event. To me, you are a small minded person if you believe that science shouldn't attempt to understand the spiritual world. For all you know God is just waiting for us to discover the link between the physical and spiritual planes of existence. <BR/><BR/>I want to believe in all kinds of supernatural things... especially heaven. I'm just very honest with the knowledge that I have available to me. I don't disregard facts when they don't match up to my preconceptions.<BR/><BR/>Knowledge.Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484481246432964371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74416319223675774762009-01-15T17:35:00.000-05:002009-01-15T17:35:00.000-05:00akakiwibear,I'm going to throw the accusation of g...akakiwibear,<BR/><BR/>I'm going to throw the accusation of grabbing at straws back at you. Let me put it this way. You keep claiming that it is inappropriate to apply IDQ to the bible, but you don't really explain why. You just claim that this is so, and then try to cite other fields where you deem the scientific method is inappropriate, but again you don't say why. In fact, your examples are quite vague, and it is not at all clear that your case is obvious.<BR/><BR/>Just in the case of art alone, I know of all kinds of ways that the scientific method can be applied appropriately, everything from cognitive science to psychology to even physics and chemistry can be appropriately applied to the study of art in a variety of different contexts.<BR/><BR/>Lee's analysis is most definitely appropriate in context of the bible, in that Christians claim to gain knowledge and information from the bible about how they should live their lives, what they should believe in, how they should vote, etc, and IDQ is a very appropriate means to evaluate the quality this information, as well as the content of the bible itself. It seems to me that you are the one grabbing at straws trying to deny this, as you haven't been able to give a substantive reason for your denial. <BR/><BR/>I concede that different fields of human endeavor have different methods, but it is not at all clear that just because they have different methods, that the fields and their methods are immune from evaluation in different contexts without a much better explanation from you about why this kind of evaluation is inappropriate in this context. Why are IDQ rules inappropriate to apply in this context? What makes the information that people purport to gain from bible study immune from this sort of evaluation? I'm going to echo Toby's comment that your argument would be a lot more powerful (and might make us rethink Lee's position) if you explained what <I>would</I> be an appropriate method of evaluation.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009287314335622703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-809920909935335542009-01-15T14:18:00.000-05:002009-01-15T14:18:00.000-05:00Jeff, you have more patience with Lee on this than...Jeff, you have more patience with Lee on this than I have. <BR/><BR/>Toby & Lee questioned my comment on attempting to validate atheist views. Let me elaborate. I see the misapplication of a methodology to a purpose as an act of desperation, a clutching at straws to justify a leap of faith.<BR/><BR/>... and yes i do see the atheist position as a huge leap of faith, too big for me.<BR/><BR/>The atheist tendency to apply the scientific method Toby seems to hold dear to a field of study where it is so obviously inappropriate is in my mind clutching at straws.<BR/><BR/>Do you apply the scientific method to art or law or philosophy or even history? No each discipline has its own appropriate methods, as does theology. This why, for example, Dawkins presents such poor theology - he does not appreciate the discipline.<BR/><BR/>Sala kahle - peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35942051374184415452009-01-15T12:39:00.000-05:002009-01-15T12:39:00.000-05:00What is the principle behind this?b) the case wher...What is the principle behind this?<BR/><B><I>b) the case where the singular intelligence (God) is intentionally hindering and frustrating attempts by some to comprehend Him. </I></B><BR/><BR/>anyone, anyone?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49354220026239927092009-01-15T11:07:00.000-05:002009-01-15T11:07:00.000-05:00Hi Jeff,I just want to say that I really appreciat...Hi Jeff,<BR/>I just want to say that I really appreciate the thoughtful dialog, and I feel that sometimes my comment "attitude" can appear flippant. I'm just enjoying the dialog and not watching my tone. <BR/>so I don't mean to offend.<BR/>...anyway...<BR/><BR/>I just want to say that <BR/>I'm working on my rebuttal to the other items in your article "The Failure of Information and Data Quality Principles When Applied to the Bible"<BR/>and I'll include whatever else I have to say about your comments there. <BR/><BR/>I'll read your other article "How Can a Blind Man Apply IDQ to the Color Red?" as well.<BR/><BR/>But I will say that I think you are ignoring an important qualifier that you need to sustain your credibility. Namely that you are ignoring the fact that even literature has some level of accuracy regarding the real world. In a tom clancy novel, some information about submarines is pretty accurate. In a tom clancy novel, some of the information about submarines is pretty high quality when compared to other novels in its genre.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60438218404020885322009-01-15T00:46:00.000-05:002009-01-15T00:46:00.000-05:00WARNING: SPOILER BELOW!!! I also want to point out...WARNING: SPOILER BELOW!!! <BR/><BR/>I also want to point out that santa does not have enough time to reach all the christians in the world, let alone all the people in the world.<BR/><BR/>sorry couldn't resist.<BR/>;-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3035289304133837602009-01-15T00:40:00.000-05:002009-01-15T00:40:00.000-05:00Hi Jeff,I'm sorry but I have to comment in pieces ...Hi Jeff,<BR/>I'm sorry but I have to comment in pieces for lack of time.<BR/><BR/>you do know that I was a christian for at least 35 years right?<BR/><BR/><B><I> The types of decisions that Randolph lists all seem to be political or legal, and I reject any notion that the Bible was intended for political or legal use. This gets to two very important IDQ criteria, Intent of the Author and Intended Audience.</I></B><BR/>I can't believe I have to explain this to you.<BR/>those were legal and political examples, but they were values held by christian voters. They committed to those ideas that they found in the bible because they thought <BR/>" 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;"<BR/><BR/>or do I have a misconception?<BR/><BR/>So what is the definition of "inspired by God" as it is used here? Who decides?<BR/><BR/>It looks like the IDQ Flaw of ambiguous representation so no interpretation can be taken to be correct without some validation or <BR/>"Triangulation".<BR/><BR/>There are 3.25 billion christians in the world each with their own notion of what or who the holy spirit is.<BR/><BR/>thats 3.25 billion independent data sets.<BR/>Since I got my figures from an american (10^9) source, not british (10^12) that is <BR/>3,250,000,000 independent data sets. <BR/><BR/>to give you some perspective on what that means<BR/>I plugged it into a spreadsheet for you edification and reading pleasure<BR/><BR/>if seconds = 3250000000 then<BR/>min = 54166666.67 <BR/>hours = 902777.7778 <BR/>days = 37615.74074 <BR/>weeks = 5373.677249 <BR/>month = 1343.419312 <BR/>years = 102.9862854 <BR/><BR/>if days = 3250000000 then<BR/>weeks = 464285714.3 <BR/>month = 116071428.6 <BR/>years = 8898258.679 <BR/><BR/>so now the next time someone asks you how many seconds are in 102 years you can tell them "about 3.25 billion"<BR/>2009 - 102 = 1907. <BR/><BR/>Then the holy spirit can only be defined as the data that appears in common in all independent sets, and then it may not be correct because it can't be independently verified because it can't be measured or observed.<BR/><BR/>so how do you "test the spirits"? <BR/>the fruit of the spirit? love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance<BR/>but can't non-christians exhibit the fruit of the spirit too? Faith? Faith in what? Jesus? Thats not what the text says! more of that IDQ flaw of ambiguous representation!<BR/><BR/>Jeff, buddy, YIKES! DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS MAN!? <BR/>You may be deceived by a demon to keep you happy while not gaining your salvation!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21842824027974451602009-01-14T23:48:00.000-05:002009-01-14T23:48:00.000-05:00Hi Jeff, one quick thing that gets to the root of ...Hi Jeff, <BR/>one quick thing that gets to the root of my rebuttal to you.<BR/><B><I>The encounter with the Holy Spirit is an experience separate from and completely independent from the Bible.</I></B><BR/>then how do you know its the "holy spirit" mentioned in the bible and not some spirit that is deceiving you preventing you from knowing the real spirit. The real spirit being the one the pentecostals believe in for example?<BR/><BR/>In a situation like this where you have two independent data sets for the same record and the data don't match, thats where verification comes in. Which data is right? Well we have to go look. We have to use external sources, we have to use <BR/>Triangulation.<BR/><BR/>We have to use data from different sources and perspectives to hone in on the data that both sets have in common and are independently supported.<BR/><BR/>Whose interpretation of the Holy Spirit is accurate?<BR/><BR/>I know! Why don't we ask the Holy Spirit?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12666532017524928722009-01-14T19:35:00.000-05:002009-01-14T19:35:00.000-05:00Lee,I have addressed this most recent blog of your...Lee,<BR/>I have addressed this most recent blog of yours in greater detail on my website under the blog "How Can a Blind Man Apply IDQ to the Color Red?" but below I list what I believe to be your salient points and give (relatively) brief answers:<BR/><BR/><I>[The] criticism is only relevant to himself and people that share his viewpoint. </I><BR/><BR/>My criticism is directed toward those who attempt to use the Bible as a primary scientific and historic document, who attempt to inappropriately apply IDQ Principles to the Bible or other non-historic, non-scientific documents or who inappropriately attempt to apply IDQ Principles to persons. <BR/><BR/><I> The purpose of the principles of Information and Data Quality (IDQ) is to improve decision making. </I><BR/><BR/>A pretty basic premise, but what decision making are we talking about here, with regard to the Bible? The types of decisions that Randolph lists all seem to be political or legal, and I reject any notion that the Bible was intended for political or legal use. This gets to two very important IDQ criteria, Intent of the Author and Intended Audience.<BR/><BR/><I>Christianity has a … “mission statement” called the Apostle’s Creed. </I><BR/><BR/>I am under no obligation with regard to my relationship with Christ to believe it as a formula for salvation or as historical truth. In fact, I am under no obligation to accept the Bible as part of my salvation. Many were converted to Christ in the days of the early church before there even was a New Testament. Salvation is an encounter with and receipt through trust of the person and spirit of Jesus Christ into one’s being, not belief in a creed. <BR/> <BR/><I>The Holy Spirit is not detectable or measurable.</I><BR/><BR/>The Holy Spirit is not an external person detectable through the objective senses but detectable nonetheless in the inner man. The Holy Spirit is detectable in the same sense that you – the inner you, not your objective body – is detectable by yourself. Is your understanding of your own interior self “self-centered and “indistinguishable from personal bias?” <BR/><BR/><I>The phenomena of different interpretations deriving from one source doesn’t seem to be consistent with a singular intelligence but a collective. </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, for the unbeliever this phenomena seems shadowy gray. However, the phenomena of different interpretations is consistent with a) differing degrees of maturity of Christians and b) the case where the singular intelligence (God) is intentionally hindering and frustrating attempts by some to comprehend Him. <BR/><BR/><I>It matters if the representation of the Holy Spirit in the Bible is accurate. </I><BR/><BR/>Actually, it’s pretty irrelevant, if I have the Holy Spirit is within me and I can perceive for myself who and what the Holy Spirit is. The encounter with the Holy Spirit is an experience separate from and completely independent from the Bible.Jeff Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04502136139528025066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18159729274425835772009-01-14T00:14:00.000-05:002009-01-14T00:14:00.000-05:00Which interpretation about the holy spirit is accu...Which interpretation about the holy spirit is accurate?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30333742392308516962009-01-14T00:06:00.000-05:002009-01-14T00:06:00.000-05:00Hi akakiwi,glad to see you.I see in your arguments...Hi akakiwi,<BR/>glad to see you.<BR/><BR/><B><I>I see in your arguments intense effort to convince yourself of the validity of your atheist position.</I></B><BR/>because....?<BR/><BR/><B><I>Jeff has a valid point that applying IDQ to the bible is irrelevant.</I></B><BR/>because....?<BR/><BR/><B><I>Taken in context it is fit for the purpose to which current Catholic theology assigns it.</I></B><BR/>If any data gets a high rating in the quality dimension for "usefulness for purpose" then the question is <BR/>"with in the scope of christianity, does it suit all groups purpose?"<BR/><BR/>then again the MIN OR MAX OPERATOR using a Weighted Ranking<BR/>USEFULNESS_OF_PURPOSE(GROUP-A1, GROUP-B0.5, GROUP-C0.3)<BR/>the min operation yields 0.3 according to group3 and the datums usefulness of purpose within the scope of christianity is determined.<BR/><BR/><B><I>your "Reasonable Doubt About The Holy Spirit" article - I still think (as I said at the time) that it is fundamentally flawed - a straw man at best.</I></B><BR/>MIN OR MAX OPERATOR using a Weighted Ranking<BR/>on HOLYSPIRIT()<BR/>pentecostals=[speaking in tongues]=.9<BR/>someothergroup=[miracles don't happen anymore]=0.0<BR/><BR/>HOLYSPIRIT(.9, 0.0]<BR/>the holy spirit gets a 0 within the scope of christianity.<BR/><BR/>The holy spirit is not defined, what it does is not understood consistent between groups within christianity, symptoms of IDQ flaws of "missing representation" and "ambiguity". It is a completely human oversight consistent with HOLYSPIRIT(0.0)<BR/><BR/>If one says that god let humans muck up the scripture, then the originator had a better chance and better copy than everyone that came after. then over time, everyone that came after had a harder time understanding the scripture because of degradation. The quality gets poorer. This is taken into account in the quality dimension "free_from_error" and some others.<BR/>here's a link to the seminal research <A HREF="http://web.mit.edu/tdqm/www/tdqmpub/PipinoLeeWangCACMApr02.pdf" REL="nofollow">"Data Quality Assessment"</A>. hopefully the link will work for you. Over time people necessarily get more agnostic about god as the quality of scripture degrades.<BR/><BR/>Face it, IDQ principles do apply to any information used to make decisions with.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37482042857348227712009-01-13T21:11:00.000-05:002009-01-13T21:11:00.000-05:00Akakiwibear wrote, "I see in your arguments intens...Akakiwibear wrote, "I see in your arguments intense effort to convince yourself of the validity of your atheist position."<BR/><BR/>Yes, this is the crux of the scientific method. One puts forth theories to best explain relevant data not only to one's self, but to others as well. While you offered "general criticism" to his ideas over all, you offered nothing substantial to better explain the sets of data he is analyzing. In the scientific community(ies), criticism is highly welcome when it has something substantial to say. Anecdotal or non-empirical data to support one's claims is irrelevant as these are difficult if not impossible to validate. <BR/><BR/>You then wrote, "Jeff has a valid point that applying IDQ to the bible is irrelevant. Taken in context it is fit for the purpose to which current Catholic theology assigns it." There are so many problems with this statement. First, it is a profound oversimplification of Catholic doctrine on the authority of scripture. Second, it implies that a lighter value on the authority of scripture is equal to little or no value.<BR/><BR/>You then offer, "Interesting to look back on your "Reasonable Doubt About The Holy Spirit" article - I still think (as I said at the time) that it is fundamentally flawed - a straw man at best." I guess I don't see this statement as constructive by itself. It would have been more palatable if you had presented/represented an alternate hypothesis for how the data Lee is attempting to analyze could be better understood?Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484481246432964371noreply@blogger.com