Comments for kvile.net http://www.kvile.net Getting Lost in Thought Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:37:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 Comment on John Walton on the Creation Act and Functional Ontology – Part One by John Walton on the Creation Act and Functional Ontology – Part Two | kvile.net http://www.kvile.net/index.php/2011/06/02/john-walton-on-the-creation-act-and-functional-ontology-part-one/#comment-4549 John Walton on the Creation Act and Functional Ontology – Part Two | kvile.net Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:37:32 +0000 http://www.kvile.net/?p=393#comment-4549 [...] Last time, if you can remember that far back, we talked about how John Walton, in his work The Lost World of Genesis One, sees the Ancient Near Eastern understanding of ontology as functional. Namely, for something to exist it must be functional within the system. [...] [...] Last time, if you can remember that far back, we talked about how John Walton, in his work The Lost World of Genesis One, sees the Ancient Near Eastern understanding of ontology as functional. Namely, for something to exist it must be functional within the system. [...]

]]> Comment on About by Patrick Cronin http://www.kvile.net/index.php/about/#comment-4537 Patrick Cronin Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:30:26 +0000 http://www.kvile.net/index.php/#comment-4537 Eyeopening and well done. Eyeopening and well done.

]]> Comment on About by admin http://www.kvile.net/index.php/about/#comment-4499 admin Wed, 26 Oct 2011 00:36:54 +0000 http://www.kvile.net/index.php/#comment-4499 Thanks Bob for stopping by and leaving a nice encouraging note. I'm trying to find all the time I can to keep reading, studying, and writing. With four young kids, that can be quite a challenge!! Many of the authors you mention have challenged my thinking. I'm glad that we have their works to broaden the community in which we explore ideas and practices. Thanks again for dropping by! Thanks Bob for stopping by and leaving a nice encouraging note. I’m trying to find all the time I can to keep reading, studying, and writing. With four young kids, that can be quite a challenge!! Many of the authors you mention have challenged my thinking. I’m glad that we have their works to broaden the community in which we explore ideas and practices. Thanks again for dropping by!

]]> Comment on About by Robert Patterson http://www.kvile.net/index.php/about/#comment-4498 Robert Patterson Tue, 25 Oct 2011 20:14:56 +0000 http://www.kvile.net/index.php/#comment-4498 It is refreshing to discover you while I was 'googling' the subject of myth, literature and scripture. I am a retired Episcopal priest, now living in Maine. In seminary I sudied Bultmann' demythology and the neo-orthodox reaction. After doctoral sudies at Harvard (no, I did not complete a ThD), my careeer was in parish ministry. C. S. Lewis was of great importance in my spiritual formation--and still is, along with Marcus Borg, Kathleen Norris, Walter Brueggemann, Fred Buechner and Joan Chittester. Keep thinking and writing. Bob P. It is refreshing to discover you while I was ‘googling’ the subject of myth, literature and scripture. I am a retired Episcopal priest, now living in Maine. In seminary I sudied Bultmann’ demythology and the neo-orthodox reaction. After doctoral sudies at Harvard (no, I did not complete a ThD), my careeer was in parish ministry. C. S. Lewis was of great importance in my spiritual formation–and still is, along with Marcus Borg, Kathleen Norris, Walter Brueggemann, Fred Buechner and Joan Chittester. Keep thinking and writing. Bob P.

]]> Comment on How can we know anything about God? Part I by Lilly Stuart http://www.kvile.net/index.php/2008/11/03/how-can-we-know-anything-about-god-part-i/#comment-4489 Lilly Stuart Sun, 21 Aug 2011 14:42:08 +0000 http://www.kvile.net/?p=28#comment-4489 :-) I got a hyperlink to this web site from Themelis Cuiper's SocialGarden happenings about smo & socialmedia marketing - so you must be doing an excellent job. :-) I got a hyperlink to this web site from Themelis Cuiper’s SocialGarden happenings about smo & socialmedia marketing – so you must be doing an excellent job.

]]> Comment on the necessity of knowing and writing by Essie http://www.kvile.net/index.php/2008/11/20/the-necessity-of-knowing-and-writing/#comment-4405 Essie Wed, 11 May 2011 19:56:23 +0000 http://www.kvile.net/?p=41#comment-4405 And I thought I was the snseblie one. Thanks for setting me straight. And I thought I was the snseblie one. Thanks for setting me straight.

]]> Comment on C.S. Lewis, Myth and Scripture by ?? http://www.kvile.net/index.php/2011/03/04/c-s-lewis-myth-and-scripture/#comment-4372 ?? Sat, 30 Apr 2011 23:31:13 +0000 http://www.kvile.net/?p=282#comment-4372 I find myself strongly over it and love learning on this topic,and melted it a bit leaving resin on the bottom of the part!2 I find myself strongly over it and love learning on this topic,and melted it a bit leaving resin on the bottom of the part!2

]]> Comment on The Bible Alone?? by britney femme fatalE http://www.kvile.net/index.php/2008/08/16/the-bible-alone/#comment-4354 britney femme fatalE Wed, 20 Apr 2011 04:24:17 +0000 http://www.kvile.net/?p=19#comment-4354 future diary of the wimpy kid books future diary of the wimpy kid books

]]> Comment on How Earplugs Saved My Life by Angelina http://www.kvile.net/index.php/2011/02/28/how-earplugs-saved-my-life/#comment-4260 Angelina Tue, 01 Mar 2011 02:25:19 +0000 http://www.kvile.net/?p=261#comment-4260 My husband could have written this. Our youngest was very colicky and screamed for about 3 months. My husband just couldn't take it. I think that the ear drums are more sensitive for men or something. I really think they kept him sane (or from going insane at least). My husband could have written this. Our youngest was very colicky and screamed for about 3 months. My husband just couldn’t take it. I think that the ear drums are more sensitive for men or something. I really think they kept him sane (or from going insane at least).

]]> Comment on How Earplugs Saved My Life by Katie seevers http://www.kvile.net/index.php/2011/02/28/how-earplugs-saved-my-life/#comment-4259 Katie seevers Tue, 01 Mar 2011 02:17:23 +0000 http://www.kvile.net/?p=261#comment-4259 This is hilarious! Love it. This is hilarious! Love it.

]]> Comment on Truth and Argument by admin http://www.kvile.net/index.php/2010/12/03/truth-and-argument/#comment-4142 admin Sat, 11 Dec 2010 02:48:55 +0000 http://www.kvile.net/?p=219#comment-4142 I derived a polemic attitude that hinted at apologetics. It seems he is basically saying (to the Christian) don't believe everything archaeology has to say (which that sentiment I agree with). However, archaeological evidence is something that can easily come into apologetic discussions, therefore Christians need to be aware of what they are actually saying in terms of argumentation for the truth of the Bible. Nevertheless, I think that my point holds polemically or apologetically. Any argument is meant to be persuasive, not the basis for somethings truth or falsity. To say that the Bible (i.e. The truth claims of the bible) stands in it's own claim to be true, is a circular argument. Which is still valid (logically) but arguably persuasive polemically and not very persuasive apologetically. I think a persuasive argument (I.e. An external one) is better in both cases. Our faith rests on one reason or another, i don't think its possible to not have a reason for having faith (however weak or strong the reason might be). I think Christians have good reasons for the faith they have and are too often seen as having weak reasons (like an internal claim of the Bible's own truth as a reason for faith). Statements like Mohlers, which is made in the public arena are a case in point in my opinion. What do you think? I derived a polemic attitude that hinted at apologetics. It seems he is basically saying (to the Christian) don’t believe everything archaeology has to say (which that sentiment I agree with). However, archaeological evidence is something that can easily come into apologetic discussions, therefore Christians need to be aware of what they are actually saying in terms of argumentation for the truth of the Bible.

Nevertheless, I think that my point holds polemically or apologetically. Any argument is meant to be persuasive, not the basis for somethings truth or falsity. To say that the Bible (i.e. The truth claims of the bible) stands in it’s own claim to be true, is a circular argument. Which is still valid (logically) but arguably persuasive polemically and not very persuasive apologetically. I think a persuasive argument (I.e. An external one) is better in both cases.

Our faith rests on one reason or another, i don’t think its possible to not have a reason for having faith (however weak or strong the reason might be). I think Christians have good reasons for the faith they have and are too often seen as having weak reasons (like an internal claim of the Bible’s own truth as a reason for faith). Statements like Mohlers, which is made in the public arena are a case in point in my opinion.

What do you think?

]]> Comment on Truth and Argument by Denny Duchene http://www.kvile.net/index.php/2010/12/03/truth-and-argument/#comment-4096 Denny Duchene Sun, 05 Dec 2010 20:59:45 +0000 http://www.kvile.net/?p=219#comment-4096 It seems to me that Mohler is making a statement that applies to Christians directly. He is discussing the authority of the Word in the life of a believer. Isn't his point that, to the believer, who already claims to acknowledge biblical authority, there shouldn't be any need for external verification? In other words, isn't he arguing for the Bible's validation as a "truthful" book as a matter of faith instead of reason? I would see your point clearly if the general context of the statement was intended apologetically (though it strikes me that the nature of "truth" is being assumed from a distinctly objective perspective). From a polemical standpoint, the implications of Mohler's comments seem precise in my opinion. Thoughts? It seems to me that Mohler is making a statement that applies to Christians directly. He is discussing the authority of the Word in the life of a believer. Isn’t his point that, to the believer, who already claims to acknowledge biblical authority, there shouldn’t be any need for external verification? In other words, isn’t he arguing for the Bible’s validation as a “truthful” book as a matter of faith instead of reason?

I would see your point clearly if the general context of the statement was intended apologetically (though it strikes me that the nature of “truth” is being assumed from a distinctly objective perspective). From a polemical standpoint, the implications of Mohler’s comments seem precise in my opinion.

Thoughts?

]]>