Theology Guide
Comments
-
Ross Durham said:
Follow up question. For something like Calvin's Institutes, there are a plethora of versions (different translators, dates, etc.). Would we have to own the "right" one to get it to work in the Systematic Theologies section or the Theology Guide? I currently have been using (with lots of my notes):
LLS:42.110.15
2013-07-22T16:45:43Z
CICR.logos4If I had to buy a new version to have access to the Institutes in these new features, that would make the Theological Guide much less valuable to me.
I don't have that particular version of Calvin's Institutes, but if it has specific Milestones for the Institutes (something other than page numbers), then it should work fine. (My versions do have them.)
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
Thanks for the reply. Are the n.n.n (e.g. 4.2.1 or IV.ii.1) the Milestones for the Institutes? Yes, it has those. Is "Milestones" a Logos resource nomenclature or is that a "Calvin Institutes" specific nomenclature? If it is Logos, is there a specific place to look to see what Milestones are used in which resources within Logos? Thank you!
0 -
Ross Durham said:
Thanks for the reply. Are the n.n.n (e.g. 4.2.1 or IV.ii.1) the Milestones for the Institutes? Yes, it has those. Is "Milestones" a Logos resource nomenclature or is that a "Calvin Institutes" specific nomenclature? If it is Logos, is there a specific place to look to see what Milestones are used in which resources within Logos? Thank you!
No, you won't have to buy a different edition of Calvin's Institutes. There are dozens of Logos resources for which we have a specific "data type", a version-independent referencing scheme (the n.n.n scheme). You can learn more about them here: https://wiki.logos.com/List_of_Datatypes.
0 -
Ross Durham said:
Are the n.n.n (e.g. 4.2.1 or IV.ii.1) the Milestones for the Institutes?
Yeah references to the Institutes are all standardized that way like Bible versification. I'm sure the guide will work with whatever translation(s) you have.
ETA: As stated by the more authoritative Sean above. [:P]
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:
Seems that Jesus had problem with no. 3 in what seems that "wisdom sages", declared themselves "living Torah", and missed the real "living Torah" visiting them right then and there (Jesus).
Due to that usurpation, the temple was abolished, and the gentile Bride of Christ (Body of Christ) became the living stones New Temple of the Holy Spirit, with all that that entails.
While I would entirely agree with the statement that Yeishuua` is the Living Tohraah, I'm not sure what you mean by that. It sounds like you might be making room for the idea that He can be Living Tohraah and yet somehow not KEEP the Tohraah...or...maybe you think it's possible that Yeishuua` DOES keep it but HIS BODY DOESN'T. It is impossible to be His Body and somehow not do what He does--indeed, MUST DO if He is a credible (i.e. sinless) Messiah. Whatever Messiah does His Body (isn't this obvious?) MUST also do...well, unless the Messiah is susceptible to psychotic, disassociative breaks.
Given that, it seems a grand and unstable assumption that Gentiles who don't do what He does are receptacles of His Spirit. They certainly can't be considered righteous (1 Jn. 3:7). Essentially, the "church" did what the rabbis did, only differently. Both developed extensive "traditions of the elders" or "traditions of the fathers" that claim to draw near to Him and know Him...yet the oft-prophesied problem remains. 1 Jn. 2:4
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Thanks Sean for the clarification.
To my understanding some Logos power users thought you were looking into the ontology system proposed by the author of the thesis for a possible integration into Logos software.
I kind of noticed that the author interviewed you, but you were not officially looking into his suggested structure.
I know you are a busy man, but if you could read the thesis I am pretty sure it could spark ideas for further development in Logos.
Not trying to violate any copyrights, I cite here the last point in the thesis for power users to get an idea of the powerful ideas suggested by the author of the thesis:
"...5.1. The purpose of formal ontology for systems of beliefs
The purpose of ontologies for systems of beliefs is naturally related to their intended practice and specific use. While the potential uses and the usefulness of TheOn and CalvOn will be further discussed in section 5.2., some issues regarding the general purpose and validity of developing of ontologies for systems of belief will be observed here.
There is a tendency to emphasize or perceive ontology as either formal representation of reality or as formalized conceptualization for mere information practice (Arp, Smith, & Spear, 2015, p. 7). These two basic views of the purpose of ontology; correspondence with reality or functionality in practice, correspond with two philosophical views related to ontology; realism and conceptualism. Arp, Sharp and Smith argue:
67
“The goal of ontology for the realist is not to describe the concepts in people’s heads. Rather,ontology is an instrument of science, and the ontologist, like the scientist, is interested in terms or labels or codes ̶ all of which are seen as linguistic entities ̶ only insofar as they represent entities in reality. The goal of ontology is to describe and adequately represent those structures of reality that correspond to the general terms used by scientists.” (ibid. p. 7)
Øhrstrøm et. al also explain, “If ontology is seen as an information practice, ontologies may refer to multiple, possibly fragmented domain descriptions relative to some selected perspectives rather than to monolithic systems” (Øhrstrøm, Andersen, & Schärfe, 2005, p. 435). While historic ontologies of Lorhard, Wolff and Kraft were meant to categorize reality comprehensively in monolithic systems, the modern information science ontologies have departed significantly from the classical view of ontology and now they tend to be much more “subjective and changeable” than they used to be (Øhrstrøm, Andersen, & Schärfe, 2005, pp. 434-435). According to Sánchez et. al, “Computer Science does not give an answer about what is the essence (it is not its goal). It assumes thateverything that can be represented is “real”.” (Sánchez, Cavero, & Martínez, 2007, p. 7). This lastassumption stands in stark contrast with Arp, Sharp and Smith’s realist perception of ontology andthe ontologies developed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
Regardless of whether the ontologies for systems of beliefs present beliefs that correspond with reality, systems of beliefs do certainly exist as conceptual beliefs in writings, in confessions etc. that are believed by people. It is possible to represent conceptualization of such entities in doxastic or epistemic modalities such as “it is believed that ...” relative to different perspectives. This is what is done with TheOn and what is suggested in its potential merge with CalvOn, where the formalism ofCalvinism would be presented as a “perspective”.
However, abstracted and simplified “model theory” has been criticized in relation to biomedical formal ontologies by Obrst et al who state that “it has become clear that the whole detour via semantic models is in fact superfluous: the job of ontology is not the construction of simplified models; rather, a biomedical ontology should directly correspond to reality itself in a manner that maximizes descriptive adequacy within the constraints of formal rigour and computationalusefulness.” (Obrst, Janssen, & Ceusters, 2013, p. 218). In their view, “ontologies are based oncommon understanding of the real world, and try to avoid conceptualist pitfalls (...) andepistemological, belief-based, or evidential (...) observational knowledge.” (ibid. p. 220).
68
If ontology must not be mere model theory and if it ought to represent reality in the way advocated by Obrst et al, then it is contentious whether it can describe specific religious beliefs as corresponding with reality. While ontologies for systems of beliefs might conceptualize valid religious knowledge, it would be an overstatement to call that knowledge factual, scientific, or common knowledge. Yet in the view of Obrst et al, this seems to be the kind of knowledge that is appropriate for ontology. But this perception of the purpose of ontology as representing common knowledge facts is very narrow. In contrast, others have perceived ontology as “a description of a world view”, that is, a particular way of looking at a domain (Bergman, 2010) or as a formalizedand shared “abstract, simplified view of the world that we wish to represent for some purpose.”(Guarino, Oberle, & Staab, 2009, p. 3). In such perception of ontology as representing world views, there seems to be much room for systems of beliefs to be presented. In relation to Obrst’s view of epistemological or belief-based knowledge as inappropriate subjects for ontology, Roberto Poli’scontrasting remark seems informing:
“The fact that there is a mutual or bilateral form of dependence between ontology andepistemology does not oblige us to conclude that we cannot represent their specific properties and characteristics separately. On the contrary, we should specify both what ontology can say about epistemology (a belief is a kind of object, it has parts and properties, etc.), and what epistemology can say about ontology (knowledge of the structure of objects is a kind of knowledge).” (Poli, 1999).
Although it is not in the intention of the ontologies developed in this thesis, it will be controversial when ontologies are designed to represent one system of belief deliberately as the actual true ones.24This was, however, exactly what was done in the historic ontologies by Lorhard and Kraft. From this realist point of view on the purpose and use of ontology, it has been suggested that ontology might improve society in relation to religious misunderstandings:
“(...) according to Kraft, as for the whole Wolffian tradition, ontology is not just a technique, but rather a framework of a number of true statements regarding the fundamental structure of reality. (...) to Jens Kraft and the ontologists of the 18th century, the understanding of reality is
24 While artificial intelligences such as Siri, Watson and others are designed with a neutrality in mind related to spiritual or religious questions, one could imagine future AIs designed to share the Christian gospel and fundamental doctrines or other religious messages. While such imaginations could be explicit and perhaps offensive to some in their presentation of worldview sensitive issues, present societies - online and offline - are full of messages, notifications, symbols, and persuasive triggers that are value biased presenting ethics, philosophies, or beliefs. There might even be a subtle tendency to promote a pluralism treating all religious ideas as subjective realities that are equally valid.
69
also important when it comes to ethical and religious questions. They believed that dealing properly with ontology may help mankind to make a better society. According to Jens Kraft, many misunderstandings concerning social and religious improvements may in fact be avoided,if “the ontological truths” are taken properly into account.” (Øhrstrøm, Andersen, & Schärfe, 2005, p. 432)
To Kraft, ontology was “a useful foundation for any kind of scientific activity” and consequentlyuseful for ethics and religious (ibid. p. 432). Øhrstrøm et. al affirms both purposes of ontology as unified descriptions of reality and as conceptualization for information practice and they explainthat “this is not a dichotomy: in reality, these positions form a continuum, and specific efforts in ontology research may occur at any point between the extremes.” (ibid. p. 436).
Hence, the two perceptions of ontology can be understood together. Both purposes seem significant for the values of formal ontologies representing theology and system of beliefs. The benefits of these ontologies, certainly, relate to the degrees to which they are functional, and to which correspond to reality. A system that represents the religious and spiritual reality will be more beneficial than one representing belief that do not correspond to reality.
In discerning and including beliefs in ontologies it is helpful to refer to ontological commitment. This notion comes from the twentieth-century philosopher W. V. Quine (Ding, Kolari, Ding, & Avancha, 2007, p. 79). The ontological commitments represent the commitment to the entities that one regard as real. Such commitments are inevitable in the developments of formal ontologies, but the commitments might not all be equally valid, so ontology developers should be ready to defend their ontological commitments that that involved in the information systems. “It is an obvious obligation on the developer of an ontology to discuss and defend his choice of theory and the ontological commitments to which it gives rise.” (Øhrstrøm, Andersen, & Schärfe, 2005, p. 437).
5.2. Applications and utility of formal ontology
Ontologies are commonly designed with use-cases in mind. This is entirely appropriate. They should be designed to enable users achieve specific tasks effectively. For systems such as Logos Bible Software, the online Wittgenstein Nachlass and Siri, ontologies are designed to are developed to aid the users of the system in various ways. Likewise, the purpose for building ontologies
70
representing theology and systems of beliefs, such as TheOn and CalvOn, is related to their application and use.
In general, there are different field of information science in which formal ontologies are developed and used effectively. Among the subdisciplines of information science using ontologies is information architecture. It has been argued that “Database Systems, Software Engineering and Artificial Intelligence are the three most important fields where ontologies have been used to construct solutions to satisfy their needs.” (Sánchez, Cavero, & Martínez, 2007, p. 14).
More specifically the formal ontologies for systems of beliefs have different possible uses. In observing the potential utility of TheOn and CalvOn, three aspects of the usefulness of ontologies for faith and theology will be observed.
Firstly, the ontologies presented in the paper are useful for the education, pedagogy, and research in studies of humanities such as theology, history of thought and literary science. The humanistic fields of studies have not been a significant subject of ontology development compared to other areas where ontologies have been developed to a far greater extend. As seen in the ontologies for philosophy, for archiving, and for theology, formal ontology comprises a great potential for categorization and structuring information in humanities and for making that information accessible and usable. The value of the ontologies for the education, thus, comprise partly in the fact that there has not been developed formal ontologies for the domain of theology yet. Another part of this educational value is in the analytical presentation systems of belief by Ramist formalization and doxastic modalities. The developments in this thesis introduce further challenges and issues that would be appropriate topics for further studies. It might for instance be a fascinating undertaking to use the Ramist categorization in presenting a greater variety of systems of belief in a linked database clarifying ontological commitments in different traditions of thoughts.
Secondly, the ontologies related to system of beliefs and theology provide usefulness for knowledge sharing and semantic enrichment of content in the concrete information systems and applications in which they can be used. The ontologies provide useful interconnections between contents and is a powerful tool for linking data in information systems for theology and systems of belief. It has been argued and showed that the categorization formal ontology offers more complex liking and semantics than the traditional binary hyperlink structures. The semantic structures can increase the quality of user experience in web applications such as the Wittgenstein Nachlass and in desktop applications such as Logos Bible Software.
71
There are multiple specific application opportunities of ontologies for systems of beliefs. Here, the thesis will observe a few possible applications. These opportunities might include websites similar to the Wittgenstein Nachlass into which the ontology can be imported and used through software like SwickyNotes and Philospace (see http://www.discovery-project.eu/technologies.html). By such means the ontologies could be made available and visualized online for browsing, studying, commenting, discussing, etc. In this way, one could imagine a website for theological research and shared data on the writings about Calvinism. Another website use-case could be a theological encyclopedia similar to www.plato.stanford.edu structured around the ontologies for theology. Applications could also include a chat bot which can relate a specific system of belief through ontology such as the Calvinism in CalvOn. This would be easy to do with a small scope developing a chat bot that could explain the basic categories of Calvinism by the means of free chatbot software like www.chatfuel.com, but with a fuller formal ontology and other more advanced software like voice recognition system, one could imagine a personal assistant artificial intelligence like SIRI for knowledge representation of systematic theology and biblical studies. Such a project could have immense theological significance and be an incredible pedagogical tool for mediation of theology, since there is so much written data, hundred-thousands of writings, and a vast amount of information in the domain of theology. Even as a knowledge base representing theological writings an ontology like TheOn could be an incredibly usable information system for theologians and students of theology. The ontologies, TheOn and CalvOn, could also be applied in existing software like Logos Bible Software providing deepened and semantically enriched categorization for its representation systematic theology.
Thirdly, the ontologies offer the usefulness in relation to the individual believer who might observe the information system in different applications. The introduction suggested some personal/spiritual value, some educational/research value, some commercial value, and some innovational value of the undertaking developing formal ontologies of theologies and systems of beliefs. These values are of course only extended to the believer when she uses the ontological structure of information in some application. A possible application for the use of the believer could be an app of linked datadesigned to explore, comment, and meditate on one’s belief or the belief confessed in one’s church.
In sum, the ontologies presented in this thesis comprise usefulness for innovative humanistic studies, for practical uses in possible applications from websites, to AI, and to databases, and finally the ontologies and their applications comprise usefulness for individual believers who might find
72
conceptualization of their belief beneficial in contemplation, personal studies, or in spiritual growth with faith seeking understanding.
5.3. Perspectives and possibilities for further studies
The issue of knowledge representation of beliefs may be developed much further in the next decades as information science, theological technologies and artificial intelligence likely continue its growth.
Suggestions for further studies and possibilities for improving the ontologies have already been noted throughout the thesis. In bringing the comments together there seem to be two major paths going forward one concerning the improvements of the ontologies and the other concerning the development of specific applications for the ontologies. Regarding the internal improvements of the ontologies developed here, it was suggested that it would be beneficial to have future effort in conceptualizing the very text of the Westminster Confession through classes of its articles. A more substantial improvement consists in merging TheOn and CalvOn and in making them compatible with each other without compromising on the capability of the TheOn to present different perspectives and without limiting the comprehensiveness of the Calvinist categorization in CalvOn. Regarding the specific applications the ontologies, further studies could be made in development of semantically enriched information systems such as an online scholarly encyclopedia for theology, confessional applications for individual believers or faith communities, or perhaps even artificial intelligence understanding the semantics of faith.
However, there is also the future work beyond the scope of the thesis of describing and presenting other systems of beliefs and religious confessions in formal ontology and the semantic web. Other systems would include various other traditions within Christian theology, but also religious systems foreign to Christianity. It would be interesting to see ontologies developed describing the important persons, doctrines, events, places, and arguments for and against the various systems of belief.
73"
The text above corresponds to pages 67 to 73 of the thesis:
https://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/281070062/Master_Thesis_of_Simon_Josias_Graf.pdf
I find that the ontology structure as proposed is highly useful as in the author's own words:
"... information architectures designed for the purpose of presenting systems of beliefs... information architectures that aim at outlining and structuring belief systems with clarity to make the belief systems’ information findable, understandable, and usable."
Blessings.
0 -
Thanks Hamilton. Our primary interests in the Lexham Systematic Theology Ontology are organizing and indexing the content available in Logos resources, to support users who want to study from a theological perspective. The framework we've developed (which is currently more like a controlled vocabulary than a formal ontology: see https://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/ontology) is the foundation for what i hope will become a larger program of theological content classification. The ultimate goal would go beyond simply categorizing and describing theological concepts and onto more detailed issues within these concepts, the beliefs or positions of individuals and organizations (like denominations) pertaining to these issues, and the relationship between all these and the vast amount of content available in Logos. That's a much larger project which has many technical and practical challenges, and we'll have to see how far we're able to pursue it.
0 -
Very interesting Sean, thanks for the explanation.
It would be very interesting to have tools in Logos to allow one to build own systematic theology using all resources available, and with a guide like a workflow.
If you can, take a look at:
http://thirdmill.org/seminary/lesson.asp/vs/BST/ln/1
Sometimes, to help people grasp concepts better, is good to get involved in a project such as building a systematic theology.
Blessings.
0 -
Excellent insight David Paul.
Now some thoughts coming to my attention after reading your post:
1 we were born in a fallen state, redeemed by Jesus Christ, and in a Holiness highway, tumbling around as fools that we are but hopefully will make it.
Seems to me that God wanted it that way so no one could boast in front of Him.
2 to my understanding, there is only one sin that will not be pardoned: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
all other sins will be pardoned, once we realize that we are mere maggots, recipients of an unmerited gift (salvation), by God's grace, that need to confess we are far from the mark, tumbling along the holiness highway, but with high hopes of arriving because of Him, and not because of us.
Then there are some brothers that think that the reason Jesus Christ is taking His time to come back, is precisely because the Bride is not ready, mature, unblemished, etc.
Which raises some other questions:
are we to strive for Christ likeness deliberately, are we to check our praxis to see it is orthodox?
Many scream at the idea, and yell legalism, but how do we get better if we do not check?
Then there is the lack of Christian involvement to change structural evil, which may be indirectly responsible for creating cultural patterns that obtaculize Christlikeness efforts.
Plenty to reflect about, and in my view, a guide clarifying all this mess, so that effective life plan and life action can be taken by the believer "member of the Body" is needed and not systematically organized available.
It would be interesting to hear ideas on how to study and structure all key points of what you mention so that Christlikeness training and development is facilitated.
0 -
I just watched the video about the Theology Guide and my version is 8.0.0583.
Under GUIDES, I get to it slightly differently, which is okay. What's not okay is that I get NO result for ANY topic!
I only have HODGE's ST, and it doesn't give results for it. As you can also see, I don't get ANY related passages.
Am I missing something?
0 -
William, i'm not sure you're actually looking at the Theology Guide. Here's how to get to it:
Entering Original Sin should show you this:
0 -
Sean Boisen said:
Entering Original Sin should show you this:
Sorry to go there again, but I was curious as I am right now studying this topic in Berkouwer's Studies in Dogmatics. Again, this series of entries shows the LST and the Guide need a lot of work.
To begin with, I don't see any reference to the fact that there is a major difference of viewpoint between the Eastern church and the Western/Augustinian tradition; how Romans 5:12 was translated in the Vulgate had a huge impact on how this doctrine developed in the West.* Similarly, the question of inherited/imputed guilt is also a major area of controversy. A guide to systematic theology should at least hint at these issues and direct the reader to resources that discuss them.
Next, the recommended reading lists are very thin and too selective. Most are directed towards sections in Reformed STs and the Summa. A wider range of viewpoints would be helpful. Under the related article, "The Effects of the Fall...", Berkouwer's volume on Man is suggested; his excellent work on Sin (with several chapters on the subject) should be there in the "Original Sin" article. I do hope these reading lists will be enhanced and enlarged as time goes by.
OTOH, I'm happy to see more entries popping up in the Systematic Theologies section--I now see Bavinck and Vos (were they there earlier too?) But the primary aim of this tool--what I think most of your customer base would be looking for--should be to help you explore the depth and breadth of theology in your Logos library. You're going to have to consciously and deliberately reach out beyond the Reformed/Baptist theological paradigm in order to do that.
----------
*ETA, just a quick expansion for the curious from two translations that make the difference very clear:
Romans 5:12 (Douay-Rheims)
12Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
Romans 5:12 (EOB: NT)
12Therefore, [even] as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin, death passed to everyone, because {of which} all sinned.
0 -
Since we're on the topic of "original sin" (a doctrine applied to a text that never once uses the word "sin"), it might also be worth FL's time to address those perspectives that don't assume that original sin is even a topic for consideration in Gen. 3. James Barr's The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality posits such a view. Barr's much better at seeing what's wrong than what's right, but his insight is worth considering.
Yeah, it's not in Logos...it's one of the hundred-plus books I've had to buy in tangible form over the last year. Like so much else, it should be on the Logos "Get" list.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
William O'Flaherty said:
I just watched the video about the Theology Guide and my version is 8.0.0583.
Under GUIDES, I get to it slightly differently, which is okay. What's not okay is that I get NO result for ANY topic!
I only have HODGE's ST, and it doesn't give results for it. As you can also see, I don't get ANY related passages.
Am I missing something?It looks like you don't have the required licenses for the feature.
From looking at the feature set comparison chart, it looks like you'll need the Full Feature Upgrade in order to have access to the Theology Guide and associated datasets: https://www.logos.com/compare/feature-sets
Andrew Batishko | Logos software developer
0 -
Sean said:Sean Boisen said:
Entering Original Sin should show you this:
<snip />
Next, the recommended reading lists are very thin and too selective. Most are directed towards sections in Reformed STs and the Summa. A wider range of viewpoints would be helpful. Under the related article, "The Effects of the Fall...", Berkouwer's volume on Man is suggested; his excellent work on Sin (with several chapters on the subject) should be there in the "Original Sin" article. I do hope these reading lists will be enhanced and enlarged as time goes by.
OTOH, I'm happy to see more entries popping up in the Systematic Theologies section--I now see Bavinck and Vos (were they there earlier too?) But the primary aim of this tool--what I think most of your customer base would be looking for--should be to help you explore the depth and breadth of theology in your Logos library. You're going to have to consciously and deliberately reach out beyond the Reformed/Baptist theological paradigm in order to do that.
<snip />
There aren't yet any new entries, but the Recommended Reading lists vary between articles, depending on the contributor who wrote them.
We plan eventually to index virtually all systematic theologies in Logos by the categories in the Survey, so over time the Systematic Theologies section will grow into a much larger list that will cover a much wider set of perspectives.
0 -
Hi Sean:
I noticed that you mention in a review that pentecostalism is one of your areas of expertise. Do you mind mentioning the recommended resources to understand their theology, and resources that try to show why some presuppositions they have may not fully jibe with the Bible?
Also could you share with us the workflow you use to compare different perspectives on particular doctrinal topics?
Lastly: in your view, what is the best resource that most completely lists all the key components of what a systematic theology should contain.
I am pretty sure systematic theologians wanna bes like me would greatly appreciate your input.
Kind regards.
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:
I noticed that you mention in a review that pentecostalism is one of your areas of expertise. Do you mind mentioning the recommended resources to understand their theology, and resources that try to show why some presuppositions they have may not fully jibe with the Bible?
Just curious...can you name any denomination whose presuppositions fully jibe with the Bible?
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Fully none, and that is why I try to understand the perspective of most common ones in different topics to enlarge the conceptual framework to be able to see the different pertinent variables involved.
Maybe I understood wrong the command in the Bible: "Check all, retain what is good".
Kind Regards.
0 -
David Paul said:
Just curious...can you name any denomination whose presuppositions fully jibe with the Bible?
They couldn't be a denomination, if that were the requirement. Just as taken literally, all the pastors in our community are promised eternal punishment, since at most, only one is potentially not a false teacher (without guessing which one).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Hi Denise, hope all is going fine.
One little question: what ontology software do you use? protege?
MJ hinted me to ask you. I was impressed with the TheOn and CalOn ontologies, I do not know if you have read the article:
https://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/281070062/Master_Thesis_of_Simon_Josias_Graf.pdf
Also, are there any resources that you would recommend to get acquainted with the ontology viewers?
Thanks for any input you share with us.
Blessings.
0 -
Just my two leptas worth:
First, if Logos doesn't make these graphics "clickable," they are missing (in fact, ignoring) a huge opportunity to help us as we study.
Second, maybe I'm just missing it, but since there are obviously a large number of these images in Logos, is there a place where they are contained in a SINGLE image? A recent email described the Theology Guide as a "mind map," but showing an unclickable piece of a static image doesn't begin to meet the basic qualifications for a mind map. The graphics obviously exist; joining them into a single document – even a downloadable PDF – wouldn't be an impossible task, and would provide a huge benefit in showing how the various areas of theology intersect.
0 -
Pastor Greg said:
Second, maybe I'm just missing it, but since there are obviously a large number of these images in Logos, is there a place where they are contained in a SINGLE image?
Right at the front of the Lexham Survey of Theology resource in your library. Or go direct to the image in the Media Tool.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:
Hi Denise, hope all is going fine.
One little question: what ontology software do you use? protege?
MJ hinted me to ask you. I was impressed with the TheOn and CalOn ontologies, I do not know if you have read the article:
https://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/281070062/Master_Thesis_of_Simon_Josias_Graf.pdf
Also, are there any resources that you would recommend to get acquainted with the ontology viewers?
Thanks for any input you share with us.
Blessings.
Thank you for the question, Hamilton. But I'm guessing you're thinking of Rosie (Perera)? I'm at the exact opposite of that spectrum. Theology and ontology are like dogs studying humans. Lectures. Books. Dog scholars that spent years at dog school. But they remain dogs ... being good will achieve better results.
Rosie (and MJ) are the smart ones!
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Mark Barnes said:Pastor Greg said:
Second, maybe I'm just missing it, but since there are obviously a large number of these images in Logos, is there a place where they are contained in a SINGLE image?
Right at the front of the Lexham Survey of Theology resource in your library. Or go direct to the image in the Media Tool.
Thanks, Mark - that's really helpful. Now to make it a navigation tool . . .
0 -
Pastor Greg said:Mark Barnes said:Pastor Greg said:
Second, maybe I'm just missing it, but since there are obviously a large number of these images in Logos, is there a place where they are contained in a SINGLE image?
Right at the front of the Lexham Survey of Theology resource in your library. Or go direct to the image in the Media Tool.
Thanks, Mark - that's really helpful. Now to make it a navigation tool . . .
Providing a more visual way to interact with and navigate from the Lexham Systematic Theology Ontology structure is under active consideration.
0 -
Hi Mark:
Do you know if is possible to place such diagrams in canvas and then assign links to certain areas that connect to specific locations within a resource?
0 -
Thanks for your answer Denise, sorry for the misunderstanding.
As far as theology goes, I like the message that MJ puts at the bottom of her posts:
"Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."
And I like systematic theology because then you can start to explore questions such as:
are there different types of prayer? (i.e. intercessory, for spiritual warfare, praising, situational reporting, etc?)
What does worship in Sprit and truth mean? Todd mentioned that in a Lexicon Truth meant "with nothing to hide", which is another angle from what most people think on it having a "true doctrine" connotation.
And questions like the above take us to other questions: should someone outside orthopraxis worship? how about those that are sincerely mistaken?
should we use spiritual discernment gifts to pinpoint infiltrated tares in ministry / leadership positions? should we unmask them? or should we pray for God to take care of them?
From my perspective, theology is fascinating. I do get your point that much of what is called theology nowadays is nothing but pure indoctrination, and little critical thinking.
Blessed be God for letting us meet persons like you, MJ, Rosie, Mike Barnes, NB MIck, Ks4J, etc. with good God given rationality, common sense, and authentic faith.
Faith which by the way is another fascinating topic: are there many types of faith? (i.e. saving faith, rapturing faith, move mountains faith, get my miracle (or healing) faith), or is it just one type applied to different situations?, does it have measure? as in much, little, etc? And what does it entail?
Understanding of right doctrine? knowing that Jesus is alive and well through the disclosing of the heart 1 Co 14:25, have a conviction that God is all powerful and for you as adopted children?, is it a certainty that comes after experiencing the fullness of the Holy Spirit, who gives testimony that things are so?
Yes as you can see I love theology, best subject in the world, lots of questions, God's grace to allow me to little by little understand.
Am I a dog because of that? not an attack one, maybe a toy breed puppy... playful, optimistic, hoping for the best in situations, and always knowing that the master is the Master (God). LOL.
Blessings.
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:
Hi Mark:
Do you know if is possible to place such diagrams in canvas and then assign links to certain areas that connect to specific locations within a resource?
Not Mark - but the Systematic Theology diagram is from Canvas.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I sure would like to add the canvas drawing so i could manipulate it..... if it is in canvas i think that is possible.... do you know where it is so it could be used??????
thanks in advance....
0 -
Phil Gons would need to make it public. I was telling Hamilton that he could make similar diagrams in Canvas, not that the source for the Systematic Theology was public.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0
