Deb Landgraf:

I agree 100% that VoV is a way to arrive at the truth. I would add that beyond finding truth in issues, we simply enjoy discussing a variety of topics with each other--a process. I don't expect that we will all agree on very much and that is just fine--and more fun. We wouldn't have anything to talk about if we always agreed.

Deb (or anyone):  If all panelists come to agreement on an issue, have we necessarily arrived at the truth?  If all of us disagree, does it follow that only one of us right?  Does objective truth exist?   And finally, does absolute truth exist?   Take your time, this is a rare day off for me.  My granddaughter is here with me, and we may (I repeat, may!) go to Toys R Us later if we can come to an agreement on a maximum cash outlay, but other than that, I'm just sitting here waiting for Luanne to close her eyes and dip her hand into the topic jar.  

Hmmm ....  Wonder what the topic will be?   Maybe, "The Obama administration has moved to limit some business executives' salaries.  Is this action congruent with American ideals of capitalism and the idea of a free society?" 

 

"Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the cost becomes prohibitive."  William F. Buckley 

Norb Weckstein:

those outfits largely contributed to causing the problem

"Contributed" huh?  Thanks Norb, that's a start.  If they only "contributed," that leaves an opening for some possible "contributions" from others also, maybe even a possible contribution from government.  You've given me a ray of hope, whether you intended to or not, and I'll use it to soldier on here in this land where the only wrong government can commit is to "govern" less.

Clonnie..."Also, I didn't want to start ranting on E. Duane since I was trying to be helpful.  For once."

Clonnie, I just noticed what an off beat name you got pegged with, must be tough. Great news, I was back in the Bahama environment and slept great last night. The acupuncture was the ticket. Maybe a "viewer discretion advisory" warning prior to the next time you describe your late night antics...please. I couldn't help but notice the obvious cast toward Dr's. Ricky and Dave when you stated your blatant "poke it, and see what it says" comment, with the "I was trying to be helpful.  For once." statement. You do realize sir, that "once" as in "one," may be extrapolated into...you are never trying to be "helpful" minus one time. I'm just saying. Gip

Gibson Brown:

"I was trying to be helpful.  For once." statement. You do realize sir, that "once" as in "one," may be extrapolated into...you are never trying to be "helpful" minus one time.

For once today, Gip.  ...be helpful for once today.  I must also say-- the fishing is rather poor this morning.  My line has barely twitched all morning.  Perhaps the Parse-son is still asleep.

Gibson Brown:

PS...sorry E. Duane, I tried the "control + button thing" and got this print, which is worse than normal...Joe C., are you jerking me around again?

Nope.  I have four computers,  running various incarnations of Windows going back to Windows 2000, circa 1999 to my current Vista 64-bit.  In every of Internet Explorer version, ctrl+ and ctrl- resize the characters (regardless of whether the +/- is on the top key row or on the keypad). 

I've only been using Firefox for about couple of years, but during that time ctrl +/- has always worked as described. Click here.

From Internet Explorer 7 to the present, there's also a magnifier icon in the lower right hand corner of the outer frame.  The icon has a drop box to right side that enables you to resize text, and on this menu you'll also see the ctrl +/-  given as a shortcut.

I'm willing to help anyone with such problems by email (vovhelp@campbells.org) or, after initial email contact, by phone.  A house call is not even out of the question.  HOWEVER, the default text size is unsatisfactory for only a tiny fraction of users, so I don't believe that everyone increasing the text size for every post is a socially rational approach to solving problems such as E. Duane's .  If there were one hard-of-hearing person in an auditorium, would it make sense to raise the sound level in the room by +20dB?  Since the problem lies on his end, the solution belongs on his end, too.  As I have pointed out,  there are copious solutions the problem of poor eyesite, varying from increasing the size of everything on the screen, to having an on-screen magnifier for every application, to simply upgrading the version of the browser.

 

Gibson Brown:

 I have switched to tennis mode since the end of the golf season, teaching tennis, and playing to stay in shape. I have two blue chip player prospects from this very panel I'm working with. Luanne and Deb not only have mastered the writing game, but they both have a boat load of talent on a tennis court. Buy stock now, before they start winning tournaments and the price soars. They are awesome student's, and I'm expecting huge things from both by spring. I admire their commitment to being healthy, and not just saying they wish they were doing something to become more fit. I'm bringing out the "ball machine" aka "The Beast" next week, and I will probably hear a few more slang words...said with class of course.

 

Gip is an excellent tennis coach and it is clear he has been coaching for some time. It was also a lot of fun. Even before we hit the court, Gip emailed a Vince Lombardy-like pep talk that could inspire anyone on a lazy day. Eventually running around the court will be easier than it is now.

I am also training with our own Ally. Yesterday, she set me up with a great workout. We have excellent and knowledgeable resources towards a healthier lifestyle right here at VoV. Who would have thought that a love for writing could somehow translate into healthy living?

 

Clonnie Yearout:

Since it's Friday, I'm fighting the urge to reply to the excited and gleeful posts gushing about the cutting of the executives' salaries, but I'd like to pose another question while we're all waiting for Luanne to pick another question out of her topic jar.  Joe will know the answer to this if he's listening. [Bla bla bla...] Let's see -- I was going to pose a question.  Hmmm.... Okay, I've got it:  Why don't we do something useful with those hybirds?

Burying hybirds?  What is a hybird?  Is it anything like a hawk?  Maybe you got that from the George W. Bush school of mispronunciation and the Dan Quayle school of misspelling.

 

Clonnie Yearout:

If all panelists come to agreement on an issue, have we necessarily arrived at the truth?  If all of us disagree, does it follow that only one of us right?  Does objective truth exist?   And finally, does absolute truth exist?   Take your time, this is a rare day off for me.

You are correct.  Unanimous agreement is no assurance of truth.  At best, humans can hope to understand some approximate truths, and that's probably good enough in most matters.

P.S. Have you softened your position on the Bible?  In previous discussions you have stated your belief that every word of it is absolute truth.

 

Clonnie Yearout:

If all panelists come to agreement on an issue, have we necessarily arrived at the truth?  If all of us disagree, does it follow that only one of us right?  Does objective truth exist?   And finally, does absolute truth exist?  

 

 

Clonnie - I think if all VoV panelists agree, it is likely we are correct, but that doesn't mean we have our pulse on the absolute truth. There is always the chance that many are misguided. I think of Jim Jones of the People's Temple and the 900 deaths from Flavor Aid with sedatives (often thought of as Kool-Aid). Even more significant is Hitler and his following. Numbers do not always equate with right or just. I do think absolute truth exists. Any time there is a controversial topic, especially where justice is involved, there are misguided people that THINK they are right. Look at our own Commonwealths past foot-dragging to desegregate schools. Through time, the incorrectness of that is more evident to those that thought they were doing the right thing. Likewise, the minority (Conservative) opinion on VoV cannot be considered wrong (all of the time:) Deb

   

Clonnie Yearout:

Almost all young people are liberals, probably because it's "cool" to be liberal during high school and college.  It's only after we start paying our own way that we begin to wise up.

Another huge assumption from the mind of Clonnie (reflecting his belief that liberals are dependent and unwise) that is contradicted by evidence.  Research indicates that most of our nation's youth are independent (neutral or indifferent), and as likely to be right-leaning as left-leaning.  Being "cool" during adolescence is more often a matter of material culture and social behavior than political ideology.  They tend to be liberal on some social issues, compared to their elders, due to generational issues often involving authority and power.  They learn their political ideology from their parents and begin to think for themselves as they become independent of their parents' power, especially if exposed to different-minded people and information that challenges beliefs learned early in life. 

 

Ricky:

What is a hybird?  Is it anything like a hawk?

Finally!!   I should have know that Ricky's slightly age-dimmed eagle-eyes would come through for me.  My spell-check works fine.  I was just trying to see if I could take off on and extend Joe's Untied way gag.  A hybrid is the product of mixed origins -- a hybird is a carbon-based life form figment of my imagination.

Deb Landgraf:

I do think absolute truth exists.

I was hoping for something a little more concrete, Deb.  "I do not think...," is hardly the axiomatic assertion that I was hoping for. You're too smart to be caught in one of my childish traps.  Thanks for playing along anyway.

 

Clonnie Yearout:

I should have know that Ricky's slightly age-dimmed eagle-eyes would come through for me.  My spell-check works fine.  I was just trying to see if I could take off on and extend Joe's Untied way gag.  A hybrid is the product of mixed origins -- a hybird is a carbon-based life form figment of my imagination.

That's what I figured, Mr. Comedy.  I might be losing my hearing with old age but my vision is still sharp. 

Ricky:

P.S. Have you softened your position on the Bible?  In previous discussions you have stated your belief that every word of it is absolute truth.

Good question -- and a fair one.  If I can borrow a thought from former President Clinton, it all depends on your definition of "Bible."  There are the various translations and there are the original manuscripts.  My position has changed ever so slightly over the years on this question.  I was raised to believe that the Bible is infallible and inerrant and never really questioned whether it was or not until I was an adult.  During my middle age years I began to investigate the origin of the text and how it had been passed down to us over the years.  This was before the inception of the internet, and materials were more difficult to come by, but I read everything I could find relative to the subject, including books on the lives of those who have been most responsible for the text of our English language Bibles. 

As for the New Testament, while there are no original texts in existence, there are thousands of copies -- and fragments of copies -- of manuscripts, most of which date back to the second and third centuries A.D., and a few which date back to the first century.  Of all of this manuscript evidence, the overwhelming majority (way over 90%, depending on the source) is in agreement, and has come to be known as the "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text."  The other line of text is the "Egyptian or Alexandrian Text," and is believed by many if not most scholars to be a product of the Egyptian mystic, Origen.   For English Bibles, the King James, or Authorized Version follows the Textus Receptus and all other English Translations that I am aware of follow the minority, or Alexandrian Text almost exclusively.  I believe the Authorized Text to be superior, but comparing the two side by side will still show a very high degree of agreement between the two, and only a practiced ear will catch the differences.  In my opinion, the Alexandrian Text is used for new versions because it often diminishes the divinity of Jesus.  To be more accurate, the text used by new versions is actually based on the 19th century text of B. Westcott & F. Hort, who based their text on the Alexandrian text.   

I will offer what I believe to be the truth with respect to the accuracy of the text of the Bible text, but I do not try to convince others of the truth I believe it contains.  I don't think I have the power or authority within me to do that.  People don't become Christians by becoming intellectually convinced that every word of the Bible is true, in fact, just the opposite.  To the non-Christian, the Bible is hopelessly senseless and without redeeming value.  They have no desire to explore it and couldn't be convinced of the Bible's true worth any more than I could be convinced that the Koran is inspired.  Christianity must come first before the Bible opens up and comes alive.  It's impossible for mortal man to describe completely, but that is as it should be, for the event imparts immortality.    

There is much more I could say here, more evidence I could offer, but I've probably already bored you to tears.  My point, I guess, is just to say that, while many will discount the truth of the text, there is overwhelming evidence supporting the authenticity of the text.  In answer to your original question, I would say that I have seen no evidence to convince me that every word of the line of text I accept is not absolute truth, but that hardly seems to be the point to me.  Even if someone could manage to make me doubt a line or passage, the overwhelming evidence of the totality of truth it contains would be enough for me.

"I have made it a practice for several years to read the Bible through in the course of every year.  I usually devote to this reading the first hour after I rise every morning."  John Quincy Adams: Diary, Sept. 26, 1810.      

 

Clonnie Yearout:

Ricky:

P.S. Have you softened your position on the Bible?  In previous discussions you have stated your belief that every word of it is absolute truth.

Good question -- and a fair one.... I will offer what I believe to be the truth with respect to the accuracy of the text of the Bible text, but I do not try to convince others of the truth I believe it contains.  I don't think I have the power or authority within me to do that.  People don't become Christians by becoming intellectually convinced that every word of the Bible is true, in fact, just the opposite....  In answer to your original question, I would say that I have seen no evidence to convince me that every word of the line of text I accept is not absolute truth, but that hardly seems to be the point to me.  Even if someone could manage to make me doubt a line or passage, the overwhelming evidence of the totality of truth it contains would be enough for me.

Interesting.  What you wrote in 638 words I think can be summarized into 33: The authenticity of the source documents cannot be disputed; the truth of the stories within and religions based on that are matters of faith that can be neither proven nor disproven by man.