You did knock me off my chair with this one, Lance. ROTFLOL! A Scripture reference from Lance? ???
You can be sure that I looked this up right away. I don't see its direct relationship to the quote you gave. The passage speaks of the relationship between faith and being established. The quote deals with the relationship between faith and understanding. I need more context of the quote to consider it more fully. I'm not saying I disagree with it. I'm just raising my eyebrows in lacking context, and when I saw Blaine's interpretation and your amen, I wrinkled my eyebrows a bit. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Spalding Enigma May I suggest David, that you check out Isaiah chapter 7 with a special focus on verse 9? What's that, just as he's about to depart, the relativist lib quotes Scripture? At least we can hope that he has done so inaccurately. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: July 21, 2005 10:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Spalding Enigma > Lance wrote: >>> Someone has said that 'unless we believe we will not >>> understand and, it is only if we believe that we will >>> understand. There is no understanding without the >>> commitment of the mind to objective reality and >>> to its natural or intrinsic intelligibility. > > Blainer wrote: >> This could be the most fundamental truth I have >> encountered on TT. ... It suggests that one can choose >> to disbelieve something, even in the face of strong evidence >> that it is true. Or, on the other hand, that one can choose >> to believe something, even if it is obviously not true. >> ... They choose to believe or disbelieve for reasons other >> than logic and/or scriptural evidence. > > It seems to me that the statement sets up a false idea of what > understanding > is. Understanding that is based upon emotion is lame and prone to all > kinds > of error and falsehood. It seems to me that the statement says that one > must commit oneself to an object before they can understand it. This > suggests, as you say, that understanding is not based upon logic, but upon > commitment of the mind regardless of facts. Upon what basis can one > commit > oneself if not understanding? The only thing I can think of is emotion. > Maybe someone else can suggest some other motivation for making a > commitment. > > In the context of spiritual realities, there is a measure of truth to what > is being said, because spiritual realities are not perceived by the > physical > senses. Tapping into that sixth sense of man to perceive a spiritual > reality requires a commitment toward that object, and one cannot > understand > until one first perceives it. However, understanding itself is not based > upon commitment but upon logic and reason. This is where the statement > falls short. The approach is too holisitic. It would cause us in the end > to have a superficial and faulty perspective about just what understanding > is and what it requires. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
