Knowing, Believing, And Doubts- Richard Bushman

[mfbukowski]

“Red” by itself does not correspond to anything except itself—“red”. Correspondence becomes relevant when you make a statement which can be either true or false, such as, “My car is red”. According to the correspondence theory of truth, that statement is true if my car as a matter of fact is red, or in reality is red.

Yes that is the common way to speak about it. But what that means is that I "experience" my car as what we define as "red". The truth is in the statement not in the car.

You have shown that yourself. If anything what you have shown quite convincingly is that the statement "corresponds" to the experience and the experience is the "reality". What you have not shown is that the statement "corresponds" to the "reality" which is independent of the experience.

[mfbukowski]

Then this is all I really need to know, and I’m fine with that for then these become only “questions… of their own superstition,” which aren’t a sufficient standard for condemning a man for his beliefs.

But for the sake of friendly discussion, by whom is the observer’s perceived reality established, if not already by his own mind? And if this reality can only be established by someone else, how can the observer ever act independently? This seems to oppose the principle of agency.

While I see (and have experienced) how a person and the Holy Ghost can agree upon their perceptions of truth, I do not see how the Holy Ghost can actually establish or create (not just confirm) the reality of something for us without violating our agency. The person has to be willing to receive the confirming revelation, and to do that, exercise agency. Otherwise the person is like Korihor. But Korihor had already given up his agency and therefore was subject to both his own false perception and then to the truth being imposed upon him in a most unpleasant manner, and even then he never reclaimed his agency (in this life, anyway), even with the truth staring him in the face.

If I cannot experience reality without the Holy Ghost allowing me to perceive that reality independent of my own mind, my agency is denied. For example, the brother of Jared saw the finger of the Lord as a function of his own faith (mind); God neither allowed nor prevented it (“Arise, why hast thou fallen? / Sawest thou more than this?”). So I don’t see how a truth can be established for me independent of my mind once I have already perceived it with my mind. On the other hand, if the brother of Jared instead saw the Fickle Finger of Fate, he could only be convinced that it does not exist with the voluntary and correct use of his mind, since in this case, that which was observed / experienced / known cannot be defined by or for him independent of his mind or agency.

Exactly precisely perfectly hits the nail squarely on the noggin.

It all comes down to the fact that we are agents. And for those who care that is where I differ with Rorty who thinks we are bundles of vocabularies and totally contingently programmed by our language. We are not.

[mfbukowski]

“Red” by itself does not correspond to anything except itself—“red”. Correspondence becomes relevant when you make a statement which can be either true or false, such as, “My car is red”. According to the correspondence theory of truth, that statement is true if my car as a matter of fact is red, or in reality is red.

I think the question you are asking is, what does it mean for something to be “red”? My answer to that question is, something is red when it emits (or reflects) a wavelength of light that registers on the eyes of most people with normal vision as red, or creates a color sensation in their eyes to which in the English language is assigned the word “red”.

The more I think about it the more I think this post totally puts us in the same place. The only thing I might disagree with is the "in reality red" part.

If that means the reality is the experience of red, then I agree totally. If it means (and that would contradict the rest of the statement) that the "reality" beyond the experience is red then I disagree.

You have the light entering the eyes and interpreting that data as "red".

That means the red is in your mind- not on the car. That's all I am saying and all I have been saying now for this whole thread!

You sir are an anti-realist! The red is in your mind, not on the car!

[mfbukowski]

The key here is that "The truth is in the statement, not in the car".

What the car IS, is beyond our ability to perceive because all we can perceive is our perceptions! And our perceptions are "in our minds".

So the statement may "correspond" to our perceptions but they don't correspond to what the car "is" which is unknowable. When we are dealing with easy things like a color I suppose we can say that the language "corresponds" to the perception

But when we get into what words like "love" and "God" and "freedom" correspond to it is a different ball game, and it becomes problematic to say that the words really "correspond" to any experience at all.

So the simplest theory says that we stop worrying about what language "corresponds" to and just go with knowing what we mean by it and worry about communication instead

Ya unnastand wha I'm sayin'?

[mfbukowski]

“Red” by itself does not correspond to anything except itself—“red”. Correspondence becomes relevant when you make a statement which can be either true or false, such as, “My car is red”. According to the correspondence theory of truth, that statement is true if my car as a matter of fact is red, or in reality is red.

I think the question you are asking is, what does it mean for something to be “red”? My answer to that question is, something is red when it emits (or reflects) a wavelength of light that registers on the eyes of most people with normal vision as red, or creates a color sensation in their eyes to which in the English language is assigned the word “red”.

Gosh I love this post. After all this- some level of resolution. I could have written it myself.

“Red” by itself does not correspond to anything except itself—“red”.

My answer to that question is, something is red when it emits (or reflects) a wavelength of light that registers on the eyes of most people with normal vision as red, or creates a color sensation in their eyes to which in the English language is assigned the word “red”.

Exactly

Exactly

Exactly.

[brainburn]

I have already talked about it. How do you peek around the side of the revelation to see what it corresponds to? You are experiencing God directly.

You don't have to peek around because God can do it for you. God doesn't lie so you have a perfect "peeking" tool.

What does the color red correspond to - or the proverbial taste of salt?

Asking where you can find your subjective experience in the objective world is silly. A more appropriate question is what does the statement "I am seeing the color red" corresponds to? Obviously, it corresponds to your subjective experience.

I'm done. There's only so many times even I will repeat something. Yes God makes revelatory knowledge work and what we experience is what God sends us. It doesn't correspond to anything we can know to check how it corresponds to something else.

Again, God does the checking for you.

If you have read my posts you know that I have never denied that we have true knowledge of things. That is called "experiencing them". It is those who believe that experience CORRESPONDS to something else who believe we cannot experience things as they are. They ARE as they are experienced.

I have already said that multiple times. Bye. Burn your brain on someone else's time.

I understand what you do or do not deny.

But we can have true knowledge of things that are outside of experience with Godand we can have true knowledge about how our subjective worlds work.

And oh by the way- I am holding you to my CFR's. I am still waiting to see a general authority endorse a philosophical view of the correspondence theory of truth with reference to a philosopher as establishing what "truth" is.

The board rule is produce the reference or retract the statement.

I never claimed that a general authority ever endorsed a "philosophical view of the correspondence theory of truth with reference to a philosopher as establishing what 'truth' is."

But you did say this:

So the statement "I know Jesus rose from the dead" has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead- it has to do with what the claimant knows subjectively in the sense of being certain about it.

And I still am waiting for you to show that this anti-realist idea is supported (in any sense, with or without jargon) by the experts on knowing Jesus rose from the dead. Because I've found realist interpretations and they're incompatible with anti-realism.

[mfbukowski]

So the statement "I know Jesus rose from the dead" has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead- it has to do with what the claimant knows subjectively in the sense of being certain about it.

And I still am waiting for you to show that this anti-realist idea is supported (in any sense, with or without jargon) by the experts on knowing Jesus rose from the dead. Because I've found realist interpretations and they're incompatible with anti-realism.

Oh gosh man! Get a clue!

"The moon is made of green cheese"

"I know that the moon is made of green cheese"

Can't you see that some lunatic actually believe that the moon in fact IS made of green cheese making the statement that he believes this "true" without the moon actually being MADE of green cheese?

Holy cow.

The statement "I know that the moon is made of green cheese" has nothing to do with whether or not the moon is in fact made of green cheese but with the certainty of the belief of the claimant.

The word "know" has to do with a person's certainty - not anything in the world.

Why are you being so difficult?

Edited November 29, 2012 by mfbukowski

[brainburn]

If you are experiencing it directly IT DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO ANYTHING because you ARE experiencing it DIRECTLY. That is what I have been saying- we experience things directly because experience IS "reality"!! The problem is the idea that it must "correspond" to something!!

And my point would be that after you might experience truth directly from God' date=' you can derive corresponding statements from the experience.

The problem with correspondence is that "objective reality" is identified with "scientific reality" as it must be for the sake of consistency.

If scientists cannot look at it and poke it and take it apart and do it again and again all over the world, then the statement cannot be "true" because there is no scientific "reality" that the statement "corresponds" to. This is an atheistic position.

But God is the ultimate scientist. You are unnecessarily restricting yourself to what humans can determine scientifically.

We have two choices:

1- What is "in our minds" IS reality (my position)

2- What is "in our minds" does NOT count as "reality"- indeed what is "in our minds" in some way "corresponds" to some outside reality which we do not experience directly.

Both of these cannot be "true"

Therefore 2 cannot be a theistic position because it puts God outside the realm of what is "real". There is no way to test our perception of God - (or beauty or love etc) all these are "in our minds" and therefore NOT "real" by definition, or at least assertions about such things cannot be true or false because they are unverifiable.

I really don't know why this is so hard to see. It seems so obvious!

And it seems obvious to me that this is a false dilemma.

What is in our minds is reality and statements in our mind about an objective reality (external or internal, as I just explained in the other thread) can correspond to true reality.

Change 2 to: What is "in our minds" does NOT count as "reality"- indeed statements derived from revelation "in our minds" in some way "corresponds" to some external or internal reality which we do not may or may not experience directly.

[brainburn]

Oh gosh man! Get a clue!

"The moon is made of green cheese"

"I know that the moon is made of green cheese"

Can't you see that some lunatic actually believe that the moon in fact IS made of green cheese making the statement that he believes this "true" without the moon actually being MADE of green cheese?

Holy cow.

The statement has nothing to do with whether or not the moon is in fact made of green cheese but with the certainty of the belief of the claimant.

The word "know" has to do with a person's certainty - not anything in the world.

Why are you being so difficult?

I'm not being difficult. When I look for an explanation of knowledge and truth in LDS sources, I find that what "know" statements "have to do with" definitely includes the correspondence of that statement to an objective fact. That's what the person's certainty is about. (I feel the need to point out that it doesn't have to be the only thing they're certain about, too.)

So, with the cheese moon.

If a person makes the statement "I know that the moon is made of green cheese", according to you, that statement has to do with their certainty.

But their certainty about what.

Edited November 29, 2012 by brainburn

[mfbukowski]

I'm not being difficult. When I look for an explanation of knowledge and truth in LDS sources, I find that what "know" statements "have to do with" definitely includes the correspondence of that statement to an objective fact. That's what the person's certainty is about. (I feel the need to point out that it doesn't have to be the only thing they're certain about, too.)

So, with the cheese moon.

If a person makes the statement "I know that the moon is made of green cheese", according to you, that statement has to do with their certainty.

But their certainty about what.

About a stupid story that is wrong. Your point?

Where is my CFR?

[harfad]

Then this is all I really need to know, and I’m fine with that for then these become only “questions… of their own superstition,” which aren’t a sufficient standard for condemning a man for his beliefs.

I was not aware that I was condemning anybody. But when someone aggressively pushes an idea that others believe to be false, and persists in doing so in threads that are not really relevant to the issue being discussed, and creates “white noise” as someone else nicely put it which interferes with serious discussion on other topics that others might be interested in, they will want to give it a robust reply. That is to be expected.

But for the sake of friendly discussion, by whom is the observer’s perceived reality established, if not already by his own mind? And if this reality can only be established by someone else, how can the observer ever act independently? This seems to oppose the principle of agency.

I think that suggests a misunderstanding of the nature of truth. In the spiritual realm truth has an objective existence. It is substantial. It is a “thing”. It has an independent existence, and has the quality of light. In the D&C the Lord identifies “intelligence” (which was not created or made, neither indeed can be) as the “light of truth” (D&C 93:29). In D&C 88:6 Jesus himself is identified as “light of truth,” hence his ability to “comprehend all things”. In D&C 93:36, the “glory of God” is identified with intelligence, or “light and truth;” and in verse 37 we are told that “light and truth forsake the evil one”. Going back to D&C 88, verse 7, we are told “Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ.” And in the Lectures on Faith, Joseph Smith identifies the Holy Spirit with the “mind of God,” also known variously as the “Spirit of truth”. The sum total of all of this is that truth in the spiritual realm has an independent, uncreated existence, and is literally the mind of God. When we receive that light, or Spirit, or Truth, we literally receive the mind of God, or share in that mind. It is no surprising therefore that when we receive the fullness of that truth, we receive the fullness of the mind of God, and therefore become one with him in a very real sense. If two people have identical minds, then they become the same people. They are not two anymore. Now if you think that amounts to losing your agency, so be it; but evidently that is not so. You can literally have the mind of God, or the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16), and still have your own agency. Don’t ask me how it works, but apparently it does. Here also arises the misunderstanding of some statements by mystics, who have advanced such hard to accept ideas as there being only one reality or existence, and that is God. It sounds crazy, but as crazy as you might think.

[MiserereNobis]

So, today I am teaching my students about Descartes, skepticism, and the "cogito." After we go through all the possible (yet radically extreme) reasons why our perceptions may not be accurate, that we may be dreaming, or a brain in a vat, or whatever, one of my students raises his hand and says, "What does it matter if I am a body as I believe or if I am a brain in a vat? There's no way I could know either way, so shouldn't we just live our lives based on what we can know and not waste time thinking about what we cannot know?"

I gave him the mfbukowski award for pragmatism

(Now I'm wondering if my students will go to the internet and try to look up who this mfbukowski is that I referenced... *laugh*)

[brainburn]

About a stupid story that is wrong. Your point?

I'm pointing out that you can have correspondence in mind (and many people do) when you make the statement "I know Jesus rose from the dead".

Where is my CFR?

I never claimed that a general authority ever endorsed a "philosophical view of the correspondence theory of truth with reference to a philosopher as establishing what 'truth' is."

But you did say this:

So the statement "I know Jesus rose from the dead" has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead- it has to do with what the claimant knows subjectively in the sense of being certain about it.

And I still am waiting for you to show that this anti-realist idea is supported (in any sense, with or without jargon) by the experts on knowing Jesus rose from the dead. Because I've found realist interpretations and they're incompatible with anti-realism.

[brainburn]

And I realize that you might have been making the point that the statement is language and the fact of whether Jesus rose from the dead is separate from the language.

Edited November 29, 2012 by brainburn

[brainburn]

So, today I am teaching my students about Descartes, skepticism, and the "cogito." After we go through all the possible (yet radically extreme) reasons why our perceptions may not be accurate, that we may be dreaming, or a brain in a vat, or whatever, one of my students raises his hand and says, "What does it matter if I am a body as I believe or if I am a brain in a vat? There's no way I could know either way, so shouldn't we just live our lives based on what we can know and not waste time thinking about what we cannot know?"

I gave him the mfbukowski award for pragmatism

(Now I'm wondering if my students will go to the internet and try to look up who this mfbukowski is that I referenced... *laugh*)

Well what if we're in a simulation for a purpose? What if the brain in the vat was a test of whether we would make certain choices just like God would test us.

[CV75]

I think that suggests a misunderstanding of the nature of truth.

Be that as it may, I understand what I have become (with more knowledge than faith), what I am and what I am becoming (with an admixture of knowledge and faith), and what I will be becoming (with more faith than knowledge).

It is a “thing”.

Here is where the violation of the principle of agency comes into play, at least according to the way you are describing truth.

Substituting our Personal “God” for “it” / "truth" in the relevant portions of your remarks, I agree with everythign except this statement. You are saying that God is a “thing.” But He is not a thing. He acts, and is not acted upon. His mind acts, and is not acted upon. His mind is not a thing (“Man is spirit [mind]—93:35” and “God is Spirit [Mind]”—93:9, 11, 23, and especially 26).

Verse 26 shows that Truth, Spirit, and God are the same Person. John 14:6 says this clearly as well, "...I am ..the truth..."

[harfad]

Be that as it may, I understand what I have become (with more knowledge than faith), what I am and what I am becoming (with an admixture of knowledge and faith), and what I will be becoming (with more faith than knowledge).

Here is where the violation of the principle of agency comes into play, at least according to the way you are describing truth.

Substituting our Personal “God” for “it” / "truth" in the relevant portions of your remarks, I agree with everythign except this statement. You are saying that God is a “thing.” But He is not a thing. He acts, and is not acted upon. His mind acts, and is not acted upon. His mind is not a thing (“Man is spirit [mind]—93:35” and “God is Spirit [Mind]”—93:9, 11, 23, and especially 26).

Verse 26 shows that Truth, Spirit, and God are the same Person. John 14:6 says this clearly as well, "...I am ..the truth..."

I didn't say that God is a thing. I said that truth is a thing, in the same way that light is a thing. By that I meant that it has a physical reality or existence like an object, rather than being an abstract concept, which is how truth is envisaged by the natural man.

[CV75]

I didn't say that God is a thing. I said that truth is a thing, in the same way that light is a thing. By that I meant that it has a physical reality or existence like an object, rather than being an abstract concept, which is how truth is envisaged by the natural man.

And God is truth (per the scriptures I provided), not an object.

But for the moment let’s go with how truth might be (misconstrued as) a “thing.”

2 Nephi 2: 13-14 explains that there are “things” to act and “things” to be acted upon, and that God organized them all. D&C 93:30 shows that we can consider truth to be a “thing” that acts for itself. So a “thing” that is acted upon might be better referred to something other than “truth,” such as an item, an object or a description—D&C 93 uses the term “light,” and by the way it is used, "light" should not be confused with "truth," and especially not with “all truth” or “all things.”

Things that act for themselves (or truths according to D&C 93:30) are manifest in the form of God and His children. God placed us in our own sphere to act for ourselves. Things that are acted upon are most fundamentally manifest in the form of light. D&C 93 shows in several places that the light which is acted upon arises and is sent forth from the truth tha acts. It also shows that the light which freely emanates from God must be voluntarily received by the recipient in order for him to possess truth (and as stated in other scriptures, with all our heart, might, mind and strength) and so become like God (D&C 93:31; 88:49).

As recipients and possessors of light, we have to act upon that light to become true or to become “truth” in the same sense that God is truth. Otherwise we simply lose it.

Facts, which depend on and answer to truth, might be considered objective realities (see Abraham 3:6-19 for an example), but they are not “truths” that act independently (this same example refers to the intelligences which do). However, truth, which acts and answers only to itself, by the definition you offered, is subjective reality.

As independently acting beings (subjective “truths”), we experience the revelation of facts and formulate greater truth from that action—truth begets truth and uses light or facts as raw materials to accomplish that (“grace for grace”). We also experience the revelation of truth as we experience it within ourselves as we become more like God, “grace for grace.”

You mentioned earlier that we become one with God. As we do this, what else is there to correspond with other than ourselves?

[mfbukowski]

So the statement "I know Jesus rose from the dead" has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead- it has to do with what the claimant knows subjectively in the sense of being certain about it.

And I still am waiting for you to show that this anti-realist idea is supported (in any sense, with or without jargon) by the experts on knowing Jesus rose from the dead. Because I've found realist interpretations and they're incompatible with anti-realism.

Oh gosh man! Get a clue!

"The moon is made of green cheese"

"I know that the moon is made of green cheese"

Can't you see that some lunatic actually believe that the moon in fact IS made of green cheese making the statement that he believes this "true" without the moon actually being MADE of green cheese?

Holy cow.

The statement "I know that the moon is made of green cheese" has nothing to do with whether or not the moon is in fact made of green cheese but with the certainty of the belief of the claimant.

The word "know" has to do with a person's certainty - not anything in the world.

Why are you being so difficult?

You really should read your replies. Of course Jesus actually rose from the dead- that is my belief- I AM LDS you know.

It is becoming clear that you are trolling.

The statement "I know that brainburn is a martian" has nothing to do with whether or not you actually ARE a martian- it is a statement about what I know- what I have a certain (mistaken) belief about.

If you don't understand the difference, there is not much I can do about it. Everyone else here does.

Edited November 30, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

So, today I am teaching my students about Descartes, skepticism, and the "cogito." After we go through all the possible (yet radically extreme) reasons why our perceptions may not be accurate, that we may be dreaming, or a brain in a vat, or whatever, one of my students raises his hand and says, "What does it matter if I am a body as I believe or if I am a brain in a vat? There's no way I could know either way, so shouldn't we just live our lives based on what we can know and not waste time thinking about what we cannot know?"

I gave him the mfbukowski award for pragmatism

(Now I'm wondering if my students will go to the internet and try to look up who this mfbukowski is that I referenced... *laugh*)

LOL! Thanks- agree or disagree, at least SOMEONE understands my position!

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited November 30, 2012 by mfbukowski

[harfad]

And God is truth (per the scriptures I provided), not an object.

But for the moment let’s go with how truth might be (misconstrued as) a “thing.”

2 Nephi 2: 13-14 explains that there are “things” to act and “things” to be acted upon, and that God organized them all. D&C 93:30 shows that we can consider truth to be a “thing” that acts for itself. So a “thing” that is acted upon might be better referred to something other than “truth,” such as an item, an object or a description—D&C 93 uses the term “light,” and by the way it is used, "light" should not be confused with "truth," and especially not with “all truth” or “all things.”

Things that act for themselves (or truths according to D&C 93:30) are manifest in the form of God and His children. God placed us in our own sphere to act for ourselves. Things that are acted upon are most fundamentally manifest in the form of light. D&C 93 shows in several places that the light which is acted upon arises and is sent forth from the truth tha acts. It also shows that the light which freely emanates from God must be voluntarily received by the recipient in order for him to possess truth (and as stated in other scriptures, with all our heart, might, mind and strength) and so become like God (D&C 93:31; 88:49).

As recipients and possessors of light, we have to act upon that light to become true or to become “truth” in the same sense that God is truth. Otherwise we simply lose it.

Facts, which depend on and answer to truth, might be considered objective realities (see Abraham 3:6-19 for an example), but they are not “truths” that act independently (this same example refers to the intelligences which do). However, truth, which acts and answers only to itself, by the definition you offered, is subjective reality.

As independently acting beings (subjective “truths”), we experience the revelation of facts and formulate greater truth from that action—truth begets truth and uses light or facts as raw materials to accomplish that (“grace for grace”). We also experience the revelation of truth as we experience it within ourselves as we become more like God, “grace for grace.”

You mentioned earlier that we become one with God. As we do this, what else is there to correspond with other than ourselves?

You are now delving into a lot of complicated stuff, and I am not sure that you are understanding it very well, and I am not sure I want to go there. Let me highlight a couple of quotes. You said, “And God is truth ..., not an object”. What you are basically saying here is that “God is truth” is equivalent to “truth is God”. I am not sure that that statement is reversible in that way. The scriptures also say that “God is love”. Does that mean that the reverse of that statement is also true, i.e. “love is God”? I don’t think that it is.

Here is another quote:

"D&C 93 uses the term “light,” and by the way it is used, “light” should not be confused with “truth,”"

"Things that are acted upon are most fundamentally manifest in the form of light. D&C 93 shows in several places that the light which is acted upon arises and is sent forth from the truth tha[t] acts."

I am not at all convinced that those arguments are valid. In the scriptures light and truth are made indivisible from each other. It is not the case that truth “acts,” and light is “acted upon”. I don’t see that at all. I think you are trying to analyse or delve into something that you (or I) have sufficient understanding of, or are qualified to do. For these reasons I don’t think that I would want to engage in that line of debate. I stick to what I have said on the subject, and I am going to leave it at that. If you disagree with what I have said you are entitled to your opinions, as I am to mine.

[brainburn]

You really should read your replies. Of course Jesus actually rose from the dead- that is my belief- I AM LDS you know.

It is becoming clear that you are trolling.

The statement "I know that brainburn is a martian" has nothing to do with whether or not you actually ARE a martian- it is a statement about what I know- what I have a certain (mistaken) belief about.

If you don't understand the difference, there is not much I can do about it. Everyone else here does.

Of course I understand the difference. Again, I'm not trolling. You think you know what I'm thinking, what I do or don't understand, and you constantly express your assumptions and refuse to see what I'm really trying to say. I agree with all your ideas up until you add the ultimate observer and communicator.

To be clear: if your find the need to tell me something that doesn't factor in God... Stop. I already agree with you.

But including God is a totally different story. He formed the reality that acts upon us and allows us to know the way reality works (internally and externally) through revelation.

Edited December 1, 2012 by brainburn

[mfbukowski]

Of course I understand the difference. Again, I'm not trolling. You think you know what I'm thinking, what I do or don't understand, and you constantly express your assumptions and refuse to see what I'm really trying to say. I agree with all your ideas up until you add the ultimate observer and communicator.

To be clear: if your find the need to tell me something that doesn't factor in God... Stop. I already agree with you.

But including God is a totally different story. He formed the reality that acts upon us and allows us to know the way reality works (internally and externally) through revelation.

Sorry but I don't understand you at all.

[brainburn]

Plus you must not have read this post:

And I realize that you might have been making the point that the statement is language and the fact of whether Jesus rose from the dead is separate from the language.

I could reword it, but it still shows I understood what you meant.

And you skipped right over it before you tried to tell me what you think I'm misunderstanding, again. Why can't we ever start on the same page? You don't accept anything I say about God?

Edited December 1, 2012 by brainburn