(Notice that number 3. above [‘sources and limits of human knowledge’ - underscored by T-box] does not include the means of gathering and validating knowledge, which is essential to a system of epistemology. This entire list of philosophic branches is basically inadequate for the most part, but neglecting to include man’s means of validating knowledge when discussing ‘worldviews’ is in my opinion inexcusable.)

1. "Values. All men come to facts or events with their value system. This is derived subjectively or from the ‘mob rule’ view’, or by God’s revelation for the Christian.
2. "Category. Facts are interpreted by our framework or conditioning. 
3. "Limits of Possibility. Based on experience, no objective standard to interpret experience by in the Unbeliever’s worldview. 
4. "Religiously motivated. Evolution, Christianity, naturalism, false gods, self, etc." 

I have not read any of this in the Bible. If it is not in the Bible, how can you say that this is truth, when in fact you declare the Bible as the source and standard of truth? Where did you get these notions, Howard? Did you get it from one or more of your 2500 books written by so-called ‘Christian philosophers’? Are you accepting what these books and authors say and argue with the same faith, zeal and self-imposed intellectual blindness with which you surrender yourself to your beloved Bible? How do you justify this, if in fact the Bible is able to stand on its own? Why would you need to do this, if in fact the Bible is able to stand on its own? It seems to me, that if the Bible were able to stand on its own, as many claim, as a source of knowledge for man, why would you require all these 2500 books you mentioned in a recent post? Isn’t it sacrilegious to go by the words of men rather than by the word of ‘god’ in your ‘worldview’?

I’m just trying to understand how you ‘think’, and what you consider the limits of this god-sanctioned knowledge. Can you explain this to me, Howard, or am I out of luck with you on this too? (I’ve asked many Christians in the past why indeed, if the Bible is able to stand alone, why all these superfluous volumes of explanatory material and tracks [much of which contains internal disputes, controversy and polemic] are needed when the Bible is itself argued to be complete without these. I invariably get the same run around, usually something to the effect that ‘people won’t read the Bible’ [their choice, right??] or ‘these just clarify what the Bible says’ [i.e., this material just ‘interprets’ it to reflect a certain agenda] which itself concedes the fact that the Bible is unable to stand alone as a source of philosophic ideology. This has been my consistent experience on this matter.)

On that note, I’m still waiting for an answer to the post I send out yesterday in which I ask the Christians of the forum to define Christian epistemology (just one branch of philosophy) using the Bible as an exclusive source (i.e., Howard, no quotes from your library of secondary sources). As I asked in that post, please let me know how the Bible defines its essential terms, such as ‘concept’, ‘axiom’, ‘cognition’, etc. How does the Bible define value (an essential belonging properly to the philosophic branch known as ethics or morality) which Howard considers to be the primary presupposition in his list above???

If the Bible is able to stand on its own, which I seriously doubt, shouldn’t its authors have addressed these issues thoroughly enough to conclude that the 2500 books in Howard’s library are unnecessary?

Awaiting your answers,

Tindrbox

$

PS. It’s Sunday, and indeed there is a sun, rising as I said I was certain it would. Who wants to bet it won’t rise again tomorrow also?

_________________________________