Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Is knowledge derived from old catechismic (is that the word?) documents the same as having an understanding of the same?
The word you're looking for is 'catechetical'. 'Catechesis' refers to religious instruction or teaching (especially in the Catholic tradition).
What is the difference between "knowing" and "understanding" in your view? ...[text shortened]... u'd read my earlier posts in this thread, you would've seen that.[/b]
I'm not as well versed as you, so I use this dictionary a lot to keep up with your posts. Here:
http://dict.die.net/catechesis/
http://dict.die.net/the%20shorter%20catechism/
I believe you used the latter in your first post about this matter. That one refers to a specific method of teaching where you read questions and answers to supposedly learn something. I just thought that the socratic method seemed a better approach.
Granted, it would seem difficult to learn about historic events using the socratic method. I give you that one. 🙂
"The Socratic method of reasoning and instruction was by a series of questions leading the one to whom they were addressed to perceive and admit what was true or false in doctrine, or right or wrong in conduct."
- from: http://dict.die.net/socratic/
Now, as for learning the multiplication table in school, I didn't. I repeated and repeated and still, if I didn't practice, I forgot them within months (well, the easier one's stuck but when I got to things like 9x6 I was lost). Until I sat down and figured out the why's (or rather how's) I just couldn't keep it in my head. That could be a limitation in me, that most people don't suffer from, but constantly repeating something because (supposedly) that would teach me something just didn't work. Think God will forgive me for that? (Just dripping with sarcasm.)
Same goes for history. To learn dates and facts is really, really difficult. Sure, I can read and memorize to pass a test, but it's
completely useless in the long run. I have to constantly re-read the material to keep it in. However, when I put the historic events in context, it all gets a whole lot easier. Now, that's something you
can do using the socratic method (or a version thereof). By asking related questions about the event, the pupil can slowly learn to associate this or that event with certain conditions. That would also lead to a better understanding of why and how certain things happened the way they did. The knowledge is in "this happened there" and the understanding is "why and how it could happen".
I think you're being a little unfair when you claim that I dismiss something
because it's written a long time ago. I don't. I read a lot of old documents with interest and an open mind. It's the dogmatic part of your old dogmatic scriptures, that I have a problem with. They're the "do this, don't that" kind of writings that I just can't stand (unless they also present good reasons for it). I need to know
why! If there's no good reason for a principle of living, other than that something terrible will happen to me after I die, then I automatically suspect an underlying motive. And usually, that doesn't benefit me, but somebody else.
I noticed a few posts back that you said: depending on the circumstances a person may go to Heaven even if (s)he's not christian. I was ignorant to not notice this, and I apologize for it. But is it really a flawed assumption, that if I heard the gospel (not spiritually, but, you know, the words?), were born a christian, purposely deny His existence but still do good, I will go to hell? If so, that's an arrogant and boneheaded God. One I really don't want to be associated with.
Stocken