Gospel of Thomas; Really?

[Tomas]

.


-Fun Patrol-
TA, you go deeply into what your persona believes, but this is a
philosophy forum - a philosophy forum dedicated to Truth.

-tomas-
Yeah, TA .. get with the programming.


-the Fun Patrol continues-
We are here to explore true beliefs. What about you and your beliefs?

-tomas-
You .. will .. answer the question!


-Fun Patrol browbeats TA to adopt QRS groupthink-
What you bring up is a reason that QRS encourage people to
use their real names, and what others have discovered after
changing from their screen names to their real names.

-tomas-
I'm in tight with David Quinn, TA, one false answer and I'll get QRS to ban you!

PS - Where do I get the QRS decals??


.

[Talking Ass]

Elizabeth, I do understand what you are getting at. This is not related to what you wrote or anything, but I am seeing if I can put each of my user-names on suspend for awhile (Alex Jacob and Talking Ass). I have my own writing to do---lots of it---and I tend to use the forum as a way of shirking my responsibilites.

It is really fun, though, to have such a persona as Talking Ass. You gotta admit he is a likable character.

Trevor wrote (on the other thread): "oh, and bye mookestink. it'll be harder to be an asshole without the cover." [mookestink was his user-name]

I find it's easier to be nice with a cover. There are so many assholes around here using there real names, don't you think? ;-)
_______________________________________________________

Okay my beloved friends, Talking Ass is taking a little vacation!

[Animus]

I would have used my "Real Name" (Ryan Shirk) if I thought about it, I have no problem publishing my name.

[Carl G]

Using one's full name on Internet messageboards is sort of like having unprotected sex with a stranger, especially if the locale of residence is given as well.

[Animus]

Its circular because all reasoning is circular in nature.

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

I would suggest reading this http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... ebate.html

This isn't the way that "circular reasoning" is traditionally used. There are sets of axioms, bedrock assumptions. What makes them axioms is that they cannot be refuted without first accepting them. For example: "Causation is false, because...", this example attempts to refute causation by providing a necessary condition (cause) for its falsity. Example 2: "I have reasons for having faith", in this example the individual is being evidently reasonable, having reasons, but try to pass this off as something unreasonable and beyond rational criticism. A part of me wants to agree that the person in Example 2 is behaving completely irrationally, but fact is they have reasons/causes for their behaviour and cannot be completely irrational, one might say this simply to avoid thinking or critics.

Anyway, the point I was making is that something which is axiomatic is not the same as being "circular". To say; "I think therefor I am" is not circular, it is axiomatic, the "I" might be illusory as surely as it evaded Descartes, but it is a bedrock assumption. You can't say "I believe I don't exist" because you have to first exist in order to believe that you don't. This is different than saying "The Bible says its true, therefor it is true", that is circular reasoning because the Bible is not an axiom.

In a loose usage of "circular reasoning" it is all circular, but lets not mistake an axiom for something that is not an axiom.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Using one's full name on Internet messageboards is sort of like having unprotected sex with a stranger, especially if the locale of residence is given as well.

I've been okay, and I've had mine up for almost 3 years now. I'm not aware of anyone else from this board having a problem either, and a number of them have had their names out there for a lot longer. I don't think that there is significantly more risk to publishing your name here than any of the other risks of life. If anything, I think there is a greater risk of someone following a random person home from the grocery store to do whatever.

[Tomas]

I would have used my "Real Name" (Ryan Shirk) if I thought about it, I have no problem publishing my name.

Animus, no need to. Be who you are. Besides, how many Ryan Shirk's are there in the phone book? I count 22.

[Tomas]

Pseudonyms reveal more about us than our given names. If Harry Haller had been himself alone and not Steppenwolf, nor indeed others also, how on earth could he have learned to laugh at himself, he, a suicide from the beginning? Alas, despite the aid of this artifice, all we know is that he may have begun to. For this magic theatre I devised a compromise, and so offer one of my eyes. Cool and clear in the sun, not as full as when I'll have won, but it's mine, --

and made for fun!

Yes, yours in another interesting take. Thanks for input.

[Tomas]

Using one's full name on Internet messageboards is sort of like having unprotected sex with a stranger, especially if the locale of residence is given as well.

I've been okay, and I've had mine up for almost 3 years now. I'm not aware of anyone else from this board having a problem either, and a number of them have had their names out there for a lot longer. I don't think that there is significantly more risk to publishing your name here than any of the other risks of life. If anything, I think there is a greater risk of someone following a random person home from the grocery store to do whatever.

Do you have a partner, minor children? Be real, Elizabeth.

You smoke cigarettes? 43 pics > http://www.flickr.com/photos/eisabelle ;-)

It's like Carl says, especially if the locale of residence is given as well.

Were I single, perhaps I'd look at it differently. To the best of my knowledge, the only other person with first/last name resides in the State of ___________________ . Childhood nickname works best in my circumstance.

PS - I agree with Carl G. Whiz ?????!! (That's four times now in agreement)

[Animus]

I've published my name on every board I've been on, for the express purpose of demonstrating that no one is going to visit me as a result of publishing my name. Even though there were a lot of people who hated me, and hated my point of view.

You can narrow down your search Tomas if you stick to Canada.

[Tomas]

I've published my name on every board I've been on, for the express purpose of demonstrating that no one is going to visit me as a result of publishing my name. Even though there were a lot of people who hated me, and hated my point of view.

You can narrow down your search Tomas if you stick to Canada.

It doesn't concern me in the least. We'll all be micro-chipped (in the forehead/right hand) soon enough :-(

[Glostik91]

This isn't the way that "circular reasoning" is traditionally used. There are sets of axioms, bedrock assumptions. What makes them axioms is that they cannot be refuted without first accepting them. For example: "Causation is false, because...", this example attempts to refute causation by providing a necessary condition (cause) for its falsity. Example 2: "I have reasons for having faith", in this example the individual is being evidently reasonable, having reasons, but try to pass this off as something unreasonable and beyond rational criticism. A part of me wants to agree that the person in Example 2 is behaving completely irrationally, but fact is they have reasons/causes for their behaviour and cannot be completely irrational, one might say this simply to avoid thinking or critics.

Anyway, the point I was making is that something which is axiomatic is not the same as being "circular". To say; "I think therefor I am" is not circular, it is axiomatic, the "I" might be illusory as surely as it evaded Descartes, but it is a bedrock assumption. You can't say "I believe I don't exist" because you have to first exist in order to believe that you don't. This is different than saying "The Bible says its true, therefor it is true", that is circular reasoning because the Bible is not an axiom.

In a loose usage of "circular reasoning" it is all circular, but lets not mistake an axiom for something that is not an axiom.

Axioms work as long as everyone agrees on which one to use. If you say 1+1=2 and I say 1+1=11 then who is wrong? There are two different axioms used here. If I accept the second one who are you to refute me? Is it just because you choose the first one? Only one can be correct in life. That is why someone who chooses the second axiom is deluded in his thinking. So how do we know which is wrong and which is right. You must listen to the teachings of those who are enlightened to truth by the Holy Spirit of Truth. They will show you the narrow path. But how do we know who is enlightened and who isn't? First: look at their deeds. Are they pure or are they evil? Follow the pure and humble. Shun the evil and prideful. Second: do they claim to know God? A person can do good all day long, but when they say it is impossible for them to know the infinite then do not accept their teachings as truth. You say: "What makes them axioms is that they cannot be refuted without first accepting them." If you accept the person's teachings I described above without proof then you will truly be able to know God. But be wary. There are many people under delusions that claim these things for themselves. They openly live a pure life, but inside are filthy bags of dead vermin. They claim to know the infinite, yet with the smallest resistance from others they crawl back to their meaningless lives just to be accepted by someone. In their hearts they don't care about others. They only care about themselves. Those who really love others will proclaim truth to them with courage in the face of resistance. Seek and you will find. Believe and you will know.

[Animus]

Ok, so, Glostik, those aren't axioms. An axiom is something which must be accepted in order to refute it. According to definitional logic 1+1 = 2. If you decide to redefine the symbol "1" as what is currently defined as "5.5" then you can, through the use of definitional logic, arrive at the conclusion that "1+1=11", of course now you have to redefine all the other numbers in order to make math work. Point is that neither of those examples are axioms. As regards mathmatical logic, and axiom would be independant of definition, for example A=A is such a mathmatical axiom. A+B = B+A is another such axiom. It doesn't matter what you define A and B as. For example give A the value of 7 and B the value of 9, you are left with 7+9=9+7 or 16=16. These are mathmatical axioms because they preclude any values given to the symbols.

An epistemological axiom is one in which a claim or part of a claim must be accepted in order to refute it. The best examples I can come up with, perhaps the only examples, are logically equivelant to the mathmatical axiom A=A. Those examples are reason and causation. Although epistemologists tend to disagree on this, anyone disagreeing must provide sufficient reason or cause to disagree, hence proving the axiomatic nature of reason and causation. Sure, one could say "I disagree" and elaborate no further on the causes for their point of view, but that wouldn't make for a rather sad debate. Such dissenters to the axiom of causation must in-fact provide cause to dissent from the axiom, all-the-while conforming to the axiom itself.

For example one might argue that the axiom of causation is false because of the observance of sponteneity. However, firstly this is litte more than an argument from ignorance as to the appearance of sponteneity, secondly and most importantly it provides a necessary condition or cause for dissenting from the axiom of causation and consequently finds itself trapped squarely within the axiom of causation.

[Animus]

Also, I'm well aware of "architects and builders of deceit" which is why I personally grapple with all knowledge claims and sort out their truth/falsity for myself, it doesn't matter who says it. If I can't understand something, its generally because I haven't put in enough effort to understand it.

I've encountered this a lot with neuroscience and physics, very difficult topics to grapple with, and although I have a solid rudimentary understanding which allows me to communicate with actual neuroscientists and physicists (and in one case a Neurophysicist), when I talk about neurological processes with the vast majority of people they are uninterested and incapable of comprehension. They will often say "I'm a simple person", and my response is always "So am I". The only difference is, they don't actually want to know for themselves, and rather be dictated to.

It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry. Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities. When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon. - Thomas Paine

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King Jr.


To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. - Isaac Asimov

My God, these folks don't know how to love that's why they love so easily. - D.H. Lawrence

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Do you have a partner, minor children? Be real, Elizabeth.

You smoke cigarettes? 43 pics > http://www.flickr.com/photos/eisabelle ;-)

That isn't me Tomas.

[Tomas]

Do you have a partner, minor children? Be real, Elizabeth.

You smoke cigarettes? 43 pics > http://www.flickr.com/photos/eisabelle ;-)

That isn't me Tomas.

Of course not, it's (you are) one of 12 in the United States ;-)

The point being, not everybody cares to advertise their real name on messageboards...

.......

Edited to change the spelling from there to their.

[Iolaus]

Oh hello Glostik,

Is it so? Do we have a real live Baptist here? Sorry to be fashionably late...

You make a good point. That's why I believe only parts of Thomas are true. My main reasoning is why would David Quinn use the gospel of Thomas or any gospel for that matter if parts of it disagree with his teachings? He is obviously using it to his own ends. The gospel of Thomas is very dually minded in that it says there is a material world and a spiritual world. But David Quinn has said in his book Wisdom of the Infinite that there is no duality; there is only God. So obviously David Quinn just picks and chooses certain passages that fit his worldview suggesting that Jesus meant the same thing David is saying. In my mind this is being deceitful.

I think the answer to your question is that David does not expect a gospel to be all truth. Instead he would use his own discernment. After all, who knows who added to the text or mistranslated it. Which is what you think about the gospel of Thomas but apparently not the others. Why would David not quote those parts he thinks are true? Of course what Jesus really meant is anyone's guess, and guess we do.

You know it can be useful to speak in terms of a spiritual and a material world, I suppose, but what can it really mean to think there are two separate realities? Isn't it really a matter of talking in terms of the sun rising and setting, which I do even though I know it isn't so - but a deeper reflection shows that there really is only one reality. It just appears to us that there are two. Bad eyesight.

[Glostik91]

My bad for not responding to you earlier. I usually take the large blocks of text and copy them over to Microsoft Word so I can interact with them easier. This time I accidentally forgot it on Word.

Not really, especially for such a large quantity of text.The minimum would be 3-4 generations, considering that the first generation includes people who were not witnesses themselves, but people who merely devoutly told a story told to them - and who knows how many generations of storytellers were actually there since the generations themselves were clumped into 3 groups. Earlier in the Bible, the begats were specified for quite some length of generations, so why in this one case would the Bible suddenly not specify where the information came from? Do you think that the teller of the story could remember all the information in Luke, but could not remember a mere 3 generations of where this information came from?

The first generation has to be eye witnesses. I don’t know how someone could be the first generation without being an eye witness. Mark was therefore a second generation. Luke used Mark and therefore parts of Luke were a third generation source. Luke also interviewed first generation sources thereby making parts of Luke second generation. Its possible that Luke interviewed Jospeh and received his family information. In Luke 1:2 the greek word for “word” is logos which could mean Jesus.

As for the "servants of the word" this is most likely the author of Mark, and the Q document.

They may well be included, but even if they are THE servants of the word, I don't see how that is relevant to the argument.

If Luke copies passages from Mark and Q then these copies are reliable. Mark was a first generation because he wrote under Peter’s instruction. Q would be first generation if it was written by a disciple. The servents of the word could mean the servents of Jesus which would be the apostles. It could also mean people who were dedicated to preserving the written teachings of Jesus.

What I'm suggesting is that Thomas was written by a disciple right after Jesus' ascension. This gospel was used by Matthew and Luke. After a few decades Gnosticism began growing in popularity among the young Christians. As the churches began to convert they took what they used as a Bible (Q document) and changed a few verses to help express their beliefs. They began to spread their newer gospel to other churches which then added some verses that expressed their beliefs. We must also take into account Cyril of Jerusalem's account of the Gospel of Thomas in that it was written by Thomas a disciple of Manes who was quite the heretic. I believe that this Thomas probably took what was the modified Q document and created what it is today as the gospel of Thomas, giving it his name. So the gospel of Thomas before it was the gospel of Thomas was for the most part reliable. (bold added)

Maybe the problem here is that I do not understand where you get the idea that there were 2 versions of Thomas. Starting at the bolded "I believe" - what is that belief based on?

My belief is based on logic. Firstly, the church fathers did not recognize this book as being divinely inspired by truth. Secondly, Thomas could have easily been added to given the format and even verse 114 has a footnote saying this verse was probably added at a later date. And lastly, the book declares that the sayings of Jesus are secret sayings in light of the fact that Jesus always taught openly. (John 18:20) This statement refers to Gnostic teachings about hidden knowledge within us. The knowledge is hidden, but it is not hidden within us. The logic I speak about is not logic I attained of my own doing, but it was Jesus who enlightened my mind with the Spirit of Truth. This is how I know my logic is true.

I'm not saying that Jesus is illogical. I am saying that you are making Jesus sound illogical. More specifically, you are using the circular reasoning fallacy.

I believe that Animus and I are already having this discussion. You are, of course, welcome to join.

Only when logic is used by flawless beings is it flawless. When logic is used by flawed beings then their logic is indeed flawed.

I think that we are talking about 2 different things. Let's try an analogy: Math is flawless. Math can be used by flawed human beings, but sometimes humans make mathematical errors, and at those times, it can be said that their math is wrong. That does not make math itself wrong. It also does not mean that humans can never, ever use math all by them and use it correctly. People regularly make change at flea markets and vegetable stands without first consulting a math book for those specific problems.

Yes, those who are under delusions cannot use logic flawlessly. So how do we break our delusions and become flawless in logic? Someone who uses logic flawlessly must show us the path of enlightenment. No one can find this path on their own. They must be led. This does not mean that a person cannot find a logically flawless person independently, but they cannot find the path to enlightenment independently.

It is impossible to learn logic when one is holding on to sin (delusion)

The point of learning logic is to rid one's self of delusion. Logic helps show the difference between illusion and reality, and when the truth is contrasted with the lie, a person has a better chance of letting go of delusion.
The biblical/Q/etc. stories that were told before the Bible was written were excellent at introducing reason to backwater shepherds and farmers who might never have been exposed to such concepts any other way. These stories are still great tools for prodding people to think.
Ever gone back and watched a kiddie movie from Disney, or rewatched Scooby Doo for the first time since childhood and saw it in a whole different way than you saw it as a child? The Bible also has many levels to appeal to minds as they mature.
Just answering something by being able to quote by book and verse is not the kind of prompting that Jesus tried to inspire. I cannot tell you where in the Bible that Jesus told his followers to think for themselves, but I know that it's in there.

Jesus never said “think for yourselves”. Jesus constantly said “believe in me”. If you think for yourself then you do not believe in Jesus. You are believing in yourself and your own capabilities. You believe that your own logic is sufficient to understand God, yet who are you? You are a finite creature compared to the ultimate infinite God who reveals himself through everything. How can someone who is finite say “I know an infinite God”? The only way to know God is if you have an infinite mediator. You say “My own logic is my infinite mediator”, yet even you agree that logic can be flawed when under delusion. So how do we know what is and what isn’t delusion? I wrote about this earlier. “First: look at their deeds. Are they pure or are they evil? Follow the pure and humble. Shun the evil and prideful. Second: do they claim to know God? A person can do good all day long, but when they say it is impossible for them to know the infinite then do not accept their teachings as truth.” A person who claims to know the infinite must have been infinite in some point of their lives. A finite person claiming to know the infinite is like a three dimensional person claiming complete understanding of the fourth dimension. The only way for them to understand the fourth dimension is if they have actually gone to the fourth dimension. Then they can show others how the fourth dimension works. Since God is infinite we will never truly be able to know Him fully. We can only know what God has manifested to us.

Logic deals with knowledge not belief. A short definition of Knowledge is a belief in something true.

There is nothing wrong with believing in that which is true.

Jesus says that you must believe in him to receive eternal life, not know him.

This statement sounds like you are professing that the Bible has something against people knowing Jesus.

To believe means to hold a conviction that something is true without proof that it is true indeed.

And belief in something untrue is a delusion.

When I read the Larkin Debate I see David Quinn holding his own logic as the highest authority. Jesus spoke about men such as these in John 9:41. Eternal Life or the knowledge of God does not come from knowing oneself because such a knowledge produces a belief of a self-starting enlightenment. In their claims of sight they become blind. Enlightenment only comes from God, and Jesus time and time again says God sent him. God sent Jesus into the world to save it. He saves the world from sin (delusions) by teaching against sin and ultimately sacrificing his life so that many may live. (John 12:24 and John 11:49-52)

I'll let David speak for himself, but since we are a part of God, knowing ourselves is knowing a part of God.

That’s a good point. Knowing ourselves is knowing an aspect of God, but many would take another step and say knowing ourselves is knowing God which is untrue. If we are to know God we must spend an eternity with Him because he is infinite. This is why Jesus came. So that we won’t go to Hell and only experience the justice of God, but that we might experience everything else about God. The point at which we start believing in Jesus is the point which we start knowing God without the fear of delusion.

I can only report from what I hear God say through the Word. How do we know God? By (in my case) reading and believing Jesus who came from God. The law is merely an expression of who God is. Its an expression God's perfection and justice. The greatest commandment comes from Jesus which is to love the Lord God. The next commandment is to love our neighbors. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians tend to reverse the order of importance which should never happen. You ask my opinion, but my opinion is the same as God's who revealed his opinion through Jeremiah. Idolatry is the greatest sin in that wherever you find sin you find idolatry. No matter the sin, it will always involve idolatry. Idolatry is the opposite of loving God. To love God is to sacrifice yourself to Him. Idolatry is to sacrifice yourself to another. Jeremiah 2:13 illustrates this well. Israel declines the love of God which is a sin and has created their own cisterns for water; cisterns which don't even work right.

You quote and relate such good stuff, but just "reporting" is not thinking. You do realize that you are on a philosophy website, right?

I am thinking for myself. Everything I say comes from what I know. I came to teach and to learn. Learning is adding to what I already know. I did not come to unlearn for if I unlearn something I shall revert to delusion and be cut off from eternal life. (Hebrews 6:4-8) I once heard a wise old man say “Philosophy is like climbing a mountain. Once you’re at the top you see a bunch of theologians sitting around a campfire wondering where you’ve been.” Philosophy is not a means to an end. It is a means to a beginning. Before one discovers truth they are not alive but dead. Truth is like a candle in the darkness, burning and shining. Come to the light while it’s still burning. If one does not the light will be forced upon them and then they will be sentenced to Hell. And in Hell those who rejected the light will glorify God.

John 19:35 says: The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

John 21:24 says: This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

To be enlightened is to be free from delusion. The Spirit enlightens us to the truth.

John 14:26 says: But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Therefore I believe it is reasonable to trust John in his telling of Jesus.

You believe that it is reasonable to trust John because John said so. That is exactly circular reasoning.

John claimed enlightenment by believing in Jesus. An enlightened person does not produce delusion independently. As Jesus put it: “For he who is not against us is for us”. Those who believe in Jesus are not against me but for me. An enlightened person will always produce truth unless they are being influenced by an outside source. Just like Antarctica cannot produce banana trees so an enlightened person cannot naturally produce delusion.

Enlighten me then.

I'm trying.

Does this mean you claim to be enlightened? If yes then what is your mediator. If no then listen to my words and believe in the one who God has sent.

[Glostik91]

Oh hello Glostik,

Is it so? Do we have a real live Baptist here? Sorry to be fashionably late...

I am real, I am alive, and I am a Baptist (born and raised). :)

I think the answer to your question is that David does not expect a gospel to be all truth. Instead he would use his own discernment. After all, who knows who added to the text or mistranslated it. Which is what you think about the gospel of Thomas but apparently not the others. Why would David not quote those parts he thinks are true? Of course what Jesus really meant is anyone's guess, and guess we do.

There are thousands of new testament manuscripts. While we don't have the originals we can piece together what was most likely the original from the thousands of manuscripts available to us. Thomas of the other hand does not have nearly as many manuscripts (around a dozen) and they are so different is causes one to believe it was purposely changed from its original form.
We do guess, but we do not guess blindly. We use the most logical interpretation which is an exegetical reading.

You know it can be useful to speak in terms of a spiritual and a material world, I suppose, but what can it really mean to think there are two separate realities? Isn't it really a matter of talking in terms of the sun rising and setting, which I do even though I know it isn't so - but a deeper reflection shows that there really is only one reality. It just appears to us that there are two. Bad eyesight.

A fiction writer uses lies to proclaim truth. This is not wrong. It becomes wrong when the writer claims the lies themselves are truth. Just look at L. Ron Hubbard.

[divine focus]

Jesus never said “think for yourselves”. Jesus constantly said “believe in me”.

What does it mean to "believe in Jesus?" Is it Jesus the person (someone who isn't you)? What is "believe in?"

I see his original meaning as being "trust in me," speaking religiously (i.e., metaphorically). Why trust a physical being you never knew?

[Glostik91]

Jesus never said “think for yourselves”. Jesus constantly said “believe in me”.

What does it mean to "believe in Jesus?" Is it Jesus the person (someone who isn't you)? What is "believe in?"

I see his original meaning as being "trust in me," speaking religiously (i.e., metaphorically). Why trust a physical being you never knew?

We do not believe just in Jesus' flesh and blood, although this is necessary. We believe in his words and actions which his followers wrote down for us to read so that we might believe. Jesus says to do something and we do it. This is belief. Jesus came into the world to draw all those which have been called by God to himself in order that they may receive eternal life. And eternal life is to know the one true God and Jesus Christ whom God has sent. When we believe in Christ our sin and delusion is taken away and we are accepted as children of God just as Jesus is the son of God. But why should we believe in Jesus? Because Jesus is the perfect tool which God uses to draw us to himself. No one can know the Father unless they know Jesus Christ. You say "Why do I trust a physical being I never knew". The Father called me out of this world just as he calls all His children out of this world. I never knew Jesus as much as his disciples did, but I know enough about him to choose to believe in him. Another cause is my parents introduced me to Jesus, but I did not believe just because of their testimony for I have gone and drunk from the spring of Life just as everyone must do in order for them to have Life in themselves. Belief is not passive but active. James said "faith without works is dead". If I believe in my car, and yet I do not enter my car and drive that belief is worth nothing. You could claim I don't believe at all. That is why we must go and drink in order for us to have Life.

[Glostik91]

Ok, so, Glostik, those aren't axioms. An axiom is something which must be accepted in order to refute it. According to definitional logic 1+1 = 2. If you decide to redefine the symbol "1" as what is currently defined as "5.5" then you can, through the use of definitional logic, arrive at the conclusion that "1+1=11", of course now you have to redefine all the other numbers in order to make math work. Point is that neither of those examples are axioms. As regards mathmatical logic, and axiom would be independant of definition, for example A=A is such a mathmatical axiom. A+B = B+A is another such axiom. It doesn't matter what you define A and B as. For example give A the value of 7 and B the value of 9, you are left with 7+9=9+7 or 16=16. These are mathmatical axioms because they preclude any values given to the symbols.

An epistemological axiom is one in which a claim or part of a claim must be accepted in order to refute it. The best examples I can come up with, perhaps the only examples, are logically equivelant to the mathmatical axiom A=A. Those examples are reason and causation. Although epistemologists tend to disagree on this, anyone disagreeing must provide sufficient reason or cause to disagree, hence proving the axiomatic nature of reason and causation. Sure, one could say "I disagree" and elaborate no further on the causes for their point of view, but that wouldn't make for a rather sad debate. Such dissenters to the axiom of causation must in-fact provide cause to dissent from the axiom, all-the-while conforming to the axiom itself.

For example one might argue that the axiom of causation is false because of the observance of sponteneity. However, firstly this is litte more than an argument from ignorance as to the appearance of sponteneity, secondly and most importantly it provides a necessary condition or cause for dissenting from the axiom of causation and consequently finds itself trapped squarely within the axiom of causation.

When I say 1+1=11 I do not mean 1=5.5, but I mean 1=1. When you put two ones next to each other you get eleven. I do not redefine all other numbers because I’m using a different axiom (albeit a delusional one). 2+6=26 is another acceptable answer for this axiom. 234-54=54234 is another arrangement. You use 7+9=9+7 and come up with 16=16. My axiom’s answer would be 79=97. This would not be correct of course with my axiom so I would have to say this statement is false. I do not understand your definition for the word axiom. You say “one in which a claim or part of a claim must be accepted in order to refute it.” How can you refute something you accept? Another definition for an axiom is something so obviously true that no proof is needed to prove its truth. But an axiom can only be realized as truth when you accept it as truth. If you don’t accept it as truth then it isn’t true for you. If you don’t believe in the right axiom then you are under a delusion. If I was to claim 1+1=11 is true while 1+1=2 is false then I am under a delusion. This is why Jesus came into the world; to separate the true axiom from the false ones.

[divine focus]

[Belief is not passive but active. James said "faith without works is dead". If I believe in my car, and yet I do not enter my car and drive that belief is worth nothing. You could claim I don't believe at all. That is why we must go and drink in order for us to have Life.

Thank you. Code-speak. I guess your code depends on what you believe, but meaning transcends the code words.

[Animus]

I say you are just making stuff up Glostik, there is nothing axiomatic about that kind of math.

I'd be interested in seeing how you derive the hypotenuse of a triangle given the other two sides, with that kind of math.

[Tomas]

[Belief is not passive but active. James said "faith without works is dead". If I believe in my car, and yet I do not enter my car and drive that belief is worth nothing. You could claim I don't believe at all. That is why we must go and drink in order for us to have Life.

Thank you. Code-speak. I guess your code depends on what you believe, but meaning transcends the code words.

This is a lot like my mother goes on about.

Note: In her church (circle), there is an American flag on the altar.

Translation: All power is derived from the State.

It's just another 501(c)3 "church", mosque, temple, whatever.

It doesn't matter to the IRS, they (the minister, rabbi, head wicca, buddhist etc) signs the same IRS form.

They are a corporation (corpse) who derives their "life" from the State.

A corporation has a president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer.

The 10% tithe is where the government gets involved, but the bible says, 'Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing (giving). The minister, however, is the IRS' private eye (informant).

So Glosnick, is there an American flag in your church? .. if there isn't be on your way :-)

If there is, you are just another cloud floater :-/