In Reply to: Re: Chaos theory? posted by Peace on January 20, 2010 at 19:50:05:
Peace:
Your statement "We definitely know much less than what we don't know, because the more we know the more questions we have. Our knowledge grows but our knowledge of our ignorance grows faster, faster and deeper as we learn" sounds very wise.
At first.
I used to reason the same way. Pre-TF, I had had several "bells and whistles" supernatural Yoga/Psychic Occult experiences, which acted as "hooks" for me and others experimenting with them; they were very alluring, intimating that I/others was/were at the center of the power promised. The persuasion "that does not come from Him Who calls you" came afterwards, like where Scripture warns of people "departing from the faith and giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines which are taught by demons" (Timothy). (Just like what TF so quickly became, for the "rank and file" simpleton people like me.
I'm glad God opened my eyes after only 2 1/2 years in the cult, and gloriously saved me).
Then, upon closer examination of your statement, it shows that yours is a circular argument for an implication for the absolutist statement that "there are absolutely no absolutes", by and "unseen but implied absolutist invisible 3rd Person" that I/You/We/He/She/It/They are in the undeniable position (place from which to "posit") of unquestionable authority.
All withought having proven so, in in the sense of a classical philosophical proof for an idea that "it MUST be accepted that the "true" nature of knowledge is solely to produce deeper ignorance".
You beg the question that I must accept an absolutist statement, beginning with a false premise, and following with an incomplete middle. In other words, you have produced no persuasive proof.
Since you are posting here, I assume that was your purpose: to define your "Journey" for the purpose of open /public discourse, and for the common purpose of getting away from the erroneous type of thinking found in destructive cults, wherever we can mutually help each other in a polite and constructive manner.
Back to the argument at hand: To state, either simply or in a complex manner, that "I am absolutely sure that there no absolutes" is absurd on its face.
So is the obverse, that "it MUST be accepted that the "true" nature of knowledge is solely to produce deeper ignorance"; obviously. And, the two are one position and are inextricably linked. I say that that, sadly is an "ad bacculum" argument of the very worst kind(in "authority" as an accepted belief, solely by reason of being currently accepted as such, withought true proof or intrinsic philosophical value).
Definitionally, an ad bacculum argument has no value, except as something one merely prefers to believe for illogical and unexplaiable reason(s); literally WITHOUT reason. From a Christian viewpoint, Demons want us to do weird, stupid, and religious things, because we're created in God's image, and they love to subvert us.
I cry "foul" to the ad bacculum arguments. Not so. Not true. Not valid.
The implication of your assumed position is still what I stated; like it or nor, and no offense intended. You have not disproved anything I said.
Here is my hypothesis about your position: If yours is a false premise, it cannot be rescued, and does not produce a paradox, but ONLY a "True/False" postion.
"Political correctness"
(which is DEFINITIONALY '""ad bacculum"/curent thoughts only") insists yours is the correct position, but does not make it so. And, no insult intended, but it cannot be followed by true humility, since it only points away from God. You would have me assume that humility ONLY points in the direction of your unestablished arguments; case supposedly closed.
IMHO, my experience, and those of thousands of non-TF Christians over 2,000 years says otherwise, as welll as the clear testimony of (non-TF) Scripture. The choice is your, yes, but that decision of yours does not make my position false per se.
I am so glad you are also out of the cult.
God bless.
OT2