timberlandko wrote:Implicator, I return yet again to the point of interpretation.
Actually, I really wish you would return to the prior point I made where I provided the definition of the term "interpret", and showed why it is that you interpret the Bible just like the rest of us. Is there a problem with the definition I provided? Do you think the definition does not apply to what you do when you evaluate what the Bible is saying? Or are you just no longer interested in discussing the original issue I took with you in this thread?
timberlandko wrote:That such might be necessary or even desirable in the context of divinely revealed truth is an absurd, self-cancelling notion, defensible only through sophistry;
Once again, you make claims of sophistry yet fail to back them up, which literally has the effect of turning your own argument back on yourself. Also, I never claimed that interpretation was "necessary", so please do not state that I have. And although interpretation may not be desirable
to you, that has no bearing on whether it was desirable to God, or (more importantly) whether it can be objectively shown that interpretation should not be desired.
timberlandko wrote:it does not stand to objective, critical, linear, logical thought.
Please demonstrate why this is the case, taking into consideration my comments above.
timberlandko wrote:Whether or not any religionist proposition, Christian or otherwise, may have any validity is immaterial; no forensically valid argument for same can be presented. That is not to say cogent, powerful, even compelling arguments may not be made - many such exist (though none have been presented in these discussions by any proponent of the Theory of Christianity) - just that no forensically valid argument can be made for any such proposition. Going back to definitions, by definition the metaphysical, with its entailed ontology, is that which lays beyond physical experience and reference. Forensically, any pro-religionist proposition by necessity proceeds from the illicit, assumption-based thesis that the religionist proposition presented is self-evidently valid.
I am going to repeat back what I think you have just said in order to ensure I have understood it - please correct me if I have not properly interpreted what I have read.
It seems as if you are claiming that all religionist propositions (regardless of their truth state) cannot be expressed in forensically valid form
just because all such propositions are necessarily of such a form that they ultimately rest upon an assumption of self-evidence specifically because they invoke that which has existence outside of the physical realm.
Is that correct?
Regardless of whether my interpretation was correct, I will assert that
all propositions
ultimately rest upon an assumption of self-evidence, whether metaphysical or not.
timberlandko wrote:Religion itself is the prime example of circular reasoning.
Life itself is the prime example of circular reasoning, specifically when one attempts to demonstrate the truth state of any proposition using
linear thought. Knowledge of anything at all
ultimately rests upon an epistemic basis, the truth state of which cannot be demonstrated using linear thought.
In short, if you consign yourself to knowing only those things that may
ultimately be demonstrated through linear thought, you cannot know anything at all, which is itself a self-refuting position to hold to.
I
Seems to me you have no problem at all telling us the way we understand it is wrong. In order to say someone else's interpretation is wrong, you must first have an interpretation of your own 
