Questions Beget Questions

David Hayward's cartoon above illustrates what happens when you tackle a question, thinking that all that will be involved is getting a simple answer. Usually instead what you get is an answer that brings with it many more new questions.

Or as a character on LOST famously said, “any answers I give you will simply lead to more questions.”

 

"I have no particular disagreement with your first two paragraphs, noting both the "full-fledged." "eschatological ..."

Michael Pahl on Jesus and Gehenna
"Galatians 1:11 can be translated differently, taking 'gospel' (the noun) and 'preach' (the verbal form) ..."

Mythicists Shock Bart Ehrman, Set Off ..."
"The whole point the Noble Lie is: you don't tell the *hoi polloi* about it. ..."

Mythicists Shock Bart Ehrman, Set Off ..."
"Sure, that's possible too. Here's my guess: Supposing Jesus existed, the original disciples such as ..."

Mythicists Shock Bart Ehrman, Set Off ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://caveat1ector.wordpress.com/ Hydroxonium

    Also known as the regress argument.

    Every perspective comes with assumptions that are either not properly questioned, or assumed to be a priori. Discussions would be much more meaningful if people were more upfront about their assumptions, and did not try to pretend that their views are objectively correct, because objectivity can only exist if people shared the same assumptions in the first place. Objectivity is only meaningful when people are playing by the same rules. If we’re all playing by different rules, then we will never really agree on anything.

    I think too little is being done to examine meta-theology, in the sense that everyone seems to assume that theologians should automatically have some kind of objective standard, even though nobody has really properly defined any such standard. I think this is how crazy stuff like penal substitution continue to be tolerated as though it was a legitimate view, even though the idea itself is completely foreign to Jewish (and even Roman) thinking. Theologians who hold such absurd views simply don’t realise how many a priori assumptions they are adding to their interpretation which are completely foreign to the actual biblical text.