Heidegger’s Hegelian Phenomenological Method (Part 2/2)
FOR PART 1 PLEASE SEE Heidegger’s Hegelian Phenomenological Method (Part 1/2) (3) Heidegger’s Hegelian Phenomenological Interpretation of Kant’s Ek-static Transcendental Idealism (A) The History of Being and Mastery of beings Kant’s critical philosophy was a major object of inquiry for Heidegger his entire career, from the early lecture course on Kant and Phenomenology and the Kant and metaphysics book of the late 1920’s, to the lecture course of 1935-36, to the essay on Kant’s thesis on Being in 1961.  The standard bearer for reading Heidegger’s interpretation of Kant is Engelland (2017) which provides a needed corrective to Dreyfus by reintroducing the Husserl question as central.  My goal here is somewhat different from Engelland in seeing Kant in terms of the “as” structure introduced above, trying to think what Heidegger sees as the Hegelian dis-closing phenomenological approach to thinking with Kant.  A guiding clue here will be Kant’s famous claim “T ... Read Article
Heidegger’s Hegelian Phenomenological Method (Part 1/2)
FOR PART 2, PLEASE SEE Heidegger’s Hegelian Phenomenological Method (Part 2/2) Teaching Hegelian Phenomenological Method by Triangulating 2 Heideggerian Case Studies (Heidegger’s Hegelian Concept of Phenomenology with The Ek-static History of Being as a Context to Leap into Heidegger’s Phenomenological Interpretation of Kant’s Ek-static Transcendental Idealism) “The Being of the universe, though it is at first hidden and concealed, has no power which can offer resistance to the search for knowledge; it has to lay itself open before the seeker.” (Hegel, inaugural Berlin address of 1818) “Both scientific and prescientific comportments are a knowing in the sense of uncovering what is previously concealed, of revealing what was previously covered up, of disclosing what so far was closed off.” (Heidegger, Phenomenological Interpretation of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, 18) “Finally, as regards clarity the reader has a right to demand first discursive (logical) clarity, th ... Read Article
Trump is Selling Bibles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFhjhgf0vn0 See HERE ... Read Article
How to Keep Kids Brainwashed
It's always been a conundrum for the church that left to their own devices children drift away from faith, so here are some of the best strategies at promoting mind control with faith. ... Read Article
Jeff Lowder
New interview with Jeff Lowder discussing the state of the God debate, his assessment of the New Atheism, and much more https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WclMfeV5Jrs ... Read Article
Once Upon A Time In Iran
This is a picture of a woman celebrating her birthday in Iran in the early 1970's, before the Islamic Revolution. ... Read Article
Megachurch pastor warns Christian wives not to withhold sex from husbands as it’s unbiblical
Pastors Reginald and Kelley Steele of Kingdom Church in Phoenix, Ariz. | YouTube/Kingdom Church see full article HERE ... Read Article
Penal Substitution Debate
It's Biblical Studies debate day on Youtube and the topic is Penal Substitution, the idea that Jesus saved you because he died for your sins. Ethan from Spartan Theology will be arguing against the Penal Substitution interpretation of Jesus's death. Check it out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvYXbI6-EX8 ... Read Article
Deviancy and the Church
Florida pastor accused of giving 15-year-old girl 'spiked' drink, sexually assaulting her at churchMonte Chitty, 62, is pastor at First Baptist Church in Marathon, Florida It's always been a question as to why sexual abuse of children is so conspicuous in the church? Perhaps it has to do with the culture of sexual purity advocated by the bible. It may actually be counterproductive. Just as dieting can be self defeating because you are thinking about food all the time, maybe demonizing sex in church is turning it into forbidden fruit? ... Read Article
More Objections to the Swoon Theory – Part 1: Objections by William Craig
In the last decade of the 20th Century, two Christian philosophers named Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli published their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (1994; hereafter: HCA). In Chapter 8, they make a case for the resurrection of Jesus. That case involves an attempt to refute four skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus. One of those skeptical theories is called the Swoon Theory. Here are the basic elements of the Swoon Theory: Jesus was crucified by the Romans. Jesus fainted (or went into a coma) but did not die while he was on the cross. When Jesus was removed from the cross, he was still alive. Jesus later came back to consciousness (without any divine intervention), and he met with some of his disciples who sincerely, but mistakenly, inferred that Jesus had died on the cross and that God raised Jesus from the dead. This belief of some of Jesus' disciples was the primary reason why belief in the resurrection of Jesus became a widespread belief among first-cen ... Read Article
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 43: McDowell’s Argument for Premise (B)
WHERE WE ARE Objection #8 against the Swoon Theory as presented by Kreeft and Tacelli FAILS, even if we repair their embarrassing blunder of asserting a key premise that is obviously false by replacing their premise (1) with the much more plausible premise (1b). The argument for Objection #8 still FAILS, because it requires premise (B), and premise (B) is DUBIOUS, because the sub-argument they give for premise (B) is too UNCLEAR to provide any significant support for (B). Nevertheless, we can give Objection #8 a second chance by substituting a better sub-argument for (B) from the Christian apologist Josh McDowell. In Evidence that Demands a Verdict (revised edition, published 1979) McDowell quotes from The Resurrection of Our Lord (1927), a book by William Milligan. As I indicated in Part 42 of this series, the quote from Milligan suggests an argument in support of premise (B): 3. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN either (a) after surviving his crucifixion Jesus continued for the rest ... Read Article
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 42: Premise (B) of Objection #8
WHERE WE ARE Although Objection #8 (Where Did Jesus Go?) as presented by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) was DEAD ON ARRIVAL because of the embarrassing blunder that a key premise of their argument was obviously FALSE, we have revised and improved that premise so that it is now plausible and NOT obviously false. Here is the revised and improved key premise: 1b. There is absolutely no legitimate and credible historical data about Jesus’ life after his crucifixion, other than some stories in the New Testament about alleged appearances of a living Jesus to some of his disciples that took place for a few weeks after Jesus was crucified. I understand this key premise to be part of a reduction-to-absurdity argument against the Swoon Theory: B. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN there would be some legitimate and credible historical data about Jesus’ life after his crucifixion, other than some stories in the New Testament about alleged ... Read Article
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 41: Repairing a Key Premise of Objection #8
WHERE WE ARE We are in the process of analyzing and evaluating Objection #8 (Where Did Jesus Go?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory, from their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). This is the final objection against the Swoon Theory by Kreeft and Tacelli that I will be critically examining. I have shown that all the other objections in HCA against the Swoon Theory have FAILED, so if Objection #8 also FAILS, then their attempt to refute the Swoon Theory will be a complete FAILURE. In Part 40 of this series, I showed that a key premise of Objection #8 is clearly and obviously FALSE: 1. There is absolutely no data, not even any false, fantastic, imagined data, about Jesus’ life after his crucifixion, in any sources, friend or foe, at any time, early or late. This claim is FALSE because there are more than a dozen passages in the New Testament that describe alleged things that Jesus said and did after he was crucified and taken down from the cross. A ... Read Article
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 40: A Key Premise of Objection #8
OBJECTION #8 (WHERE DID JESUS GO?) Here is Objection #8 (Where Did Jesus Go?) against the Swoon Theory as presented by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (HCA): If Jesus awoke from a swoon, where did he go? Think this through: you have a living body to deal with now, not a dead one. Why did it disappear? There is absolutely no data, not even any false, fantastic, imagined data, about Jesus’ life after his crucifixion, in any sources, friend or foe, at any time, early or late. A man like that, with a past like that, would have left traces.  (HCA, p. 184) I take it that the heart of this argument is contained in the fourth sentence of the above passage: 1. There is absolutely no data, not even any false, fantastic, imagined data, about Jesus’ life after his crucifixion, in any sources, friend or foe, at any time, early or late. EVALUATION OF A KEY PREMISE OF OBJECTION #8 One obvious problem with Objection #8, is that a key pr ... Read Article
Christian Apologists are UNCLEAR about the Swoon Theory – Part 3: William Craig’s Definition
WHERE WE ARE In Part 1 of this series, I showed that the very simple and very broad definition of the "Swoon Theory" implied by Kreeft and Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (1994) was WRONG, and that the very complex and very detailed definition of the "Swoon Theory" by the McDowells from their books Evidence for the Resurrection (2009) and Evidence that Demands a Verdict (2017) was WRONG and committed the STRAWMAN FALLACY. In Part 2 of this series, I showed that the two different definitions of the "Swoon Theory" by Geisler are BOTH WRONG. The definition in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (1999) is still too simple and too broad, applying to scenarios where the Swoon Theory would clearly be FALSE. The definition in I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (2004) is too complex and too narrow because it includes claims that are NOT essential to the Swoon Theory and thus commits the STRAWMAN FALLACY against supporters of the Swoon Theory. We have now considered four d ... Read Article
1 2 3 4 5 6 15