Why are there no extremist Christians?

Nihilist Virus · Nov 24, 2015

Soyeong said:
Huh?

It would be a good thing to give all that you have to the poor.

It would be a good thing to wander the world doing good works.

I would think that God would be proud of you for doing this.

If you say you are not doing the most good possible simply because it is not required, then you seem to be interested in doing the minimum required.

Soyeong · Nov 24, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
It would be a good thing to give all that you have to the poor.

It would be a good thing to wander the world doing good works.

I would think that God would be proud of you for doing this.

If you say you are not doing the most good possible simply because it is not required, then you seem to be interested in doing the minimum required.

It does not follow that because you don't take that option, therefore you want to skate by with the minimum. There are plenty of good options other than those two.

Dave-W · Nov 24, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
It would be a good thing to give all that you have to the poor.

And then you become the poor yourself and in need of assistance.

ToBeLoved · Nov 24, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
Indeed, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich, obese American from this poor, starving world to inherit the kingdom of God.

It's very short sighted for you to think that this is the. Best way for each
Person to serve God.

ToBeLoved · Nov 24, 2015

Why do all these atheists come up with these weird posts?

aiki · Nov 24, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
OK. So there is no mandate to do this. But clearly you would think it is a good thing. If you want to skate by and do the minimum, that's your own personal decision. If, instead, you want to go above and beyond for the God you love, then you should be doing this.

You don't seem to understand that a person can be sold out to God and live that out in their life without doing as you describe. It is just as radical to live your life in loving sacrifice to those around you in your family, and workplace, and social sphere as it is to enter a monastery or go about destitute, preaching the gospel on street corners. In fact, in some ways it may be much more difficult to live as God calls each of His children to live in circumstances that aren't cloistered and insulated from the world, and/or where you are known intimately. The unknown vagrant preacher on the street corner has only to preach the Gospel and let the chips fall where they may. He doesn't have to live out his faith in close community with the people to whom he preaches. They will never know if his words and his personal life really match up.

One of the greatest examples of radical Christian living I've ever heard was of a Christian man whose wife had become deathly ill. Eventually, she fell into a coma in which she remained for over a year. Each morning her husband would arrive at her bedside and read to her, and comb her hair, and talk with her about world and family events, and see to her physical needs as best he could. The medical staff had seen this sort of thing before and wondered how long it would be before he began to miss visits and then finally abandon her as every other person in the same situation as this comatose woman had been abandoned by their loved ones. But day after day, week after week, month after month the husband appeared and cared for his wife. He was never rewarded with a twitch of a hand, or the flicker of an eyelid, or any indication at all that his wife was in the least aware of his daily attention to her. Nonetheless, he loved her. He loved her when the trip from their home to her side was cold, or wet, or dark, and had been made a hundred times before. He loved her when for the thousandth time he fluffed her pillows, or brushed her hair, or straightened her nightgown, or washed her face and body. He loved her when he sat alone at her side months upon end never complaining, never missing a day. No one cheered him on. No one applauded his efforts. Some even wondered at the "obsessiveness" of his attention to his vegetable wife, criticizing him for not being able to just "let her go." In the end, the man's wife never revived. She died the silent, unmoving figure for whom her husband had faithfully cared all those many, many months. Why did this man love his wife in this enormously self-sacrificing way? Why was he so radical in his love for her? Why did his love not fade as it did with everyone else? Because his love was not his own, but God's. The husband had made himself the loving hands of God to his wife; he had yielded himself to God as a conduit of His love. In this I see true radical Christian living, though it was not the sort of radical Christian living you've described. The husband in his solitary and obscure circumstance was more the figure of Christ than any penniless itinerant street preacher on his soapbox will ever be.

Selah.

SkyWriting · Nov 24, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
I'm not Christian so I don't understand your point. Also, sinners and hypocrites would have a TV crew following them. Real saints do their good works in secret... which, regrettably, makes my OP harder to answer.

Sorry. My point being that the poor, shoeless, charitable preachers are difficult to
find with a TV remote. You need to hit the railroad boxcars to spot such people.

2PhiloVoid · Nov 24, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
It would be a good thing to give all that you have to the poor.

It would be a good thing to wander the world doing good works.

I would think that God would be proud of you for doing this.

If you say you are not doing the most good possible simply because it is not required, then you seem to be interested in doing the minimum required.

...and so... you are the definer and arbiter of what constitutes the "minimum" and the "most" good?

2PhiloVoid

Nihilist Virus · Nov 24, 2015

DaveW-Ohev said:
And then you become the poor yourself and in need of assistance.

Matthew 6:25-34

ToBeLoved said:
Why do all these atheists come up with these weird posts?

It's weird to ask why so few Christians on earth are even making an attempt at following Christ's example?

aiki said:
You don't seem to understand that a person can be sold out to God and live that out in their life without doing as you describe. It is just as radical to live your life in loving sacrifice to those around you in your family, and workplace, and social sphere as it is to enter a monastery or go about destitute, preaching the gospel on street corners. In fact, in some ways it may be much more difficult to live as God calls each of His children to live in circumstances that aren't cloistered and insulated from the world, and/or where you are known intimately. The unknown vagrant preacher on the street corner has only to preach the Gospel and let the chips fall where they may. He doesn't have to live out his faith in close community with the people to whom he preaches. They will never know if his words and his personal life really match up.

One of the greatest examples of radical Christian living I've ever heard of was about a Christian man whose wife had become deathly ill. Eventually, she fell into a coma in which she remained for over a year. Each morning her husband would arrive at her bedside and read to her, and comb her hair, and talk with her about world and family events, and see to her physical needs as best he could. The medical staff had seen this sort of thing before and wondered how long he would go before he began to miss visits and then finally abandon her as every other person in the woman's situation had been abandoned by their loved ones. But day after day, week after week, month after month the husband appeared and cared for his comatose wife. He was never rewarded with a twitch of a hand, or the flicker of an eyelid, or any indication at all that his wife was in the least aware of his daily attention to her. Nonetheless, he loved her. He loved her when the trip from their home to her side was cold, or wet, or dark, and had been made a hundred times before. He loved her when for the thousandth time he fluffed her pillows, or brushed her hair, or straightened her nightgown, or washed her face and body. He loved her when he sat alone at her side months upon end never complaining, never missing a day. No one cheered him on. No one applauded his efforts. Some even wondered at the "obsessiveness" of his attention to his vegetable wife, criticizing him for not being able to just "let her go." In the end, the man's wife never revived. She died the silent, unmoving figure for whom her husband had faithfully cared all those many, many months. Why did this man love his wife in this enormously self-sacrificing way? Why was he so radical in his love for her? Why did his love not fade as it did with everyone else? Because his love was not his own, but God's. The husband had made himself the loving hands of God to his wife; he had yielded himself to God as a conduit of His love. In this I see true radical Christian living, though it was not the sort of radical Christian living you've described. The husband in his solitary and obscure circumstance was more the figure of Christ than any penniless itinerant street preacher on his soapbox will ever be.

Selah.

I'm sure there are atheists who have done the same.

2PhiloVoid said:
...and so... you are the definer and arbiter of what constitutes the "minimum" and the "most" good?

2PhiloVoid

Oh hey again 2PV... I see I missed your earlier contribution here.

2PhiloVoid said:
Nihilist,

Simple. (Simple?) If God (and/or Jesus) didn't command that all Christians everywhere at all times give up all they own, as well as preclude the taking on of any and all worldly substances, then no Christian is going to feel compelled to bend backwards to do something that wasn't commanded, especially if the idea wasn't made completely and plainly clear without the use of parables or various figures of speech and hyperbole.

Sure, we can point to the Rich Young Ruler as an example where Jesus seems to imply such a thing, or we can take the parable of the "Hidden Treasure" in Matthew 13:44 as a supposed 'ideal' for Christians. But, then we'd have to question our interpretation of these verses and the contexts in which they are situated in the passages in which they're found. And, to put the icing on the cake, we then have to ask why Jesus didn't reprimand Zaccheus for ONLY giving HALF of his wealth to the poor (Luke 19:1-10). Why does Zaccheus get an exemption of sorts when the Rich Young Ruler had to give up perhaps all? OH, contradiction! No, it's not a contradiction; its a mix of contexts.

Additionally, nowhere are all Christians commanded to become high level, world travelling, evangelists ... Sure, all Christians are supposed to 'defend' their personal faith to some extent, but scouting the world over isn't quite the same thing.

(While I respect your intelligence and gift for incisive thought, you often leave me wondering what precisely your exegetical and hermenuetical approach is to the Bible. The way in which you interpret the Bible, or expect it to be understood, seems to be a little on the simplistic side, and I'm guessing its something with which you were inculcated by either your father or through your former church 'inerrancy culture.')

Just sayin'

2PhiloVoid

I do not think my approach is too simplistic. A simplistic approach is the correct one. Or do you disagree with this:

1.) We are on this planet as a test to see if we are naughty or nice
2.) If God is fair, he will give us all the chance to at least understand the rules
3.) God is fair (?)
4.) God made some people just plain stupid
5.) Therefore, God made the Bible easy to understand
6.) Hence, the Bible is simple

Also, the Bible has made it clear that a simplistic reading is the correct one.
Romans 1:22
Matthew 18:3

So with that in mind, when Jesus tells someone to sell all he has and give it to the poor, are we to assume Jesus was talking to just that one guy? Why then is it even recorded in the Bible if we weren't meant to hear it?

2PhiloVoid · Nov 25, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
Oh hey again 2PV... I see I missed your earlier contribution here.

I don't harbor any hard feelings. Glad you noticed.

I do not think my approach is too simplistic. A simplistic approach is the correct one.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this since I think simplicity is highly overrated, and I don't feel compelled to subscribe to Occam's Razor out of any kind of logical necessity, particularly as some would attempt to apply it to the Bible.

Or do you disagree with this:

1.) We are on this planet as a test to see if we are naughty or nice
2.) If God is fair, he will give us all the chance to at least understand the rules
3.) God is fair (?)
4.) God made some people just plain stupid
5.) Therefore, God made the Bible easy to understand
6.) Hence, the Bible is simple

Yep, I kind of do ... with each premise, in fact.

Also, the Bible has made it clear that a simplistic reading is the correct one.
Romans 1:22

I must be really dense because I don't see how this verse implies simplicity in the least.

Matthew 18:3

wow... We clearly have not been studying the same hermeneutics texts.

So with that in mind, when Jesus tells someone to sell all he has and give it to the poor, are we to assume Jesus was talking to just that one guy?

Typically, yes. (And should we exempt Zaccheus from Jesus' "memo" on giving?)

Why then is it even recorded in the Bible if we weren't meant to hear it?

Well, one might make the case that hearing and applying are two different things, NV.

By the way, if the Bible is so simple to interpret, don't you think it strange that the New Testament writers warn against mishandling or misinterpretation of the Scriptures? And if the Bible is simple to understand, why do we have all of the various Christian denominations?

Peace
2PhiloVoid

ToBeLoved · Nov 25, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
It's weird to ask why so few Christians on earth are even making an attempt at following Christ's example?

But that is not what you have done.

What you have done is taken one specific thing that Jesus asked some to do. Following Christ's example is much, much more than the scenario that you have set up. Because you do not understand the Bible is probably why you think this was the most important thing that He said.

zippy2006 · Nov 25, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
I will not even consider any member of the Catholic church to come anywhere near this high requirement.

So when presented with tens of thousands of individuals who take vows of celibacy, poverty, and obedience in conformance with an "extreme following of Christ," you ignore them on principle. It's like asking a question with your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed tight.

Nihilist Virus · Nov 26, 2015

2PhiloVoid said:
Yep, I kind of do ... with each premise, in fact.

Utterly incredible that you can disagree with each of those premises.

Point 2, as an "if... then..." statement, is hard to refute. You can reject point 3 all you like, but that has nothing to do with the validity of point 2.

Also, if you reject point 4, what is it you're saying... that people willfully choose to be stupid?

I must be really dense because I don't see how this verse implies simplicity in the least.
wow... We clearly have not been studying the same hermeneutics texts.

Understand as children. I take this to mean that scripture is to be read in a simplistic manner.

Typically, yes. (And should we exempt Zaccheus from Jesus' "memo" on giving?)Well, one might make the case that hearing and applying are two different things, NV.

So Jesus tells one person to give all he has to the poor, and another person gives half of what he has and Jesus is fine with it. That's your argument? Jesus was "fine" with all kinds of bad behavior. He dined with sinners, was chummy with Mary Magdalene, etc.

By the way, if the Bible is so simple to interpret, don't you think it strange that the New Testament writers warn against mishandling or misinterpretation of the Scriptures? And if the Bible is simple to understand, why do we have all of the various Christian denominations?

Peace
2PhiloVoid

Because people have a a view of the world according to their own innate preferences, and then contort the Bible to fit into that worldview. I've seen gay Christians argue that homosexuality is not a sin, and was only a sin for Levites; I've seen someone on here who is a nudist and argues it is the proper Biblical way to live; the confederate states argued that slavery was sanctioned by the Bible (which actually requires no twisting of the Bible). The list goes on.

Nihilist Virus · Nov 26, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
But that is not what you have done.

What you have done is taken one specific thing that Jesus asked some to do. Following Christ's example is much, much more than the scenario that you have set up. Because you do not understand the Bible is probably why you think this was the most important thing that He said.

This thread is about extremist Christians. I am choosing one of the more extreme commands Jesus gave. Going to church once a year on Easter and eating crackers with grape juice is not exactly following the extreme commandments of Jesus.

Nihilist Virus · Nov 26, 2015

zippy2006 said:
So when presented with tens of thousands of individuals who take vows of celibacy, poverty, and obedience in conformance with an "extreme following of Christ," you ignore them on principle. It's like asking a question with your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed tight.

Two questions:

1. If a Catholic is vocally against the hoarding habits of the Vatican and protests publicly, calling the high members of the church hypocrites, will such a protester be allowed to remain as a member of the church? I seem to recall some Martin Luther guy being fed up.

2. Would such protest be righteous and Christlike?

2PhiloVoid · Nov 26, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
Utterly incredible that you can disagree with each of those premises.

Point 2, as an "if... then..." statement, is hard to refute. You can reject point 3 all you like, but that has nothing to do with the validity of point 2.

Actually, I find point 2 easily dismissible. It says, as you put it, "2.) If God is fair, he will give us all the chance to at least understand the rules." Well, point 2 sounds nice as an if/then statement, but anyone can see from the biblical writers use of prophesies, parables, hyperboles, and other figures of speech, along with assertions about God's is Sovereignty of choice, that He doesn't operate by way of a modern sense of Enlightenment fairness and/or rights. I take it that you have read the entire New Testament, right, NV?

Also, if you reject point 4, what is it you're saying... that people willfully choose to be stupid?

As a former major in education, and a short term teacher, I would say 'yes' many people choose to be 'stupid,' (or uneducated) when dealing with the bible, if indeed they are being stupid (or uneducated). And for those persons living in the modernized countries, stupidity and remaining uneducated is a choice. So...in your case of approaching the bible with simplicity, that can be rectified, if you're willing. (Which shouldn't be too hard for you, since you're already learning other fields at higher levels.)

Understand as children. I take this to mean that scripture is to be read in a simplistic manner.

I don't. I take it to mean to be pliable about learning from Christ, with a good attitude, such as a typical child would at the knee of their elementary school teacher. What it doesn't imply is any kind of necessary uber-simplicity.

So Jesus tells one person to give all he has to the poor, and another person gives half of what he has and Jesus is fine with it. That's your argument?

If you'll take the time to read the text that contains the narrative of Jesus and Zaccheus, you'll see that Jesus was anything but "just fine" with Zaccheus' actions regarding money.

Jesus was "fine" with all kinds of bad behavior. He dined with sinners, was chummy with Mary Magdalene, etc.

Yeah, right. That's why Jesus would say things like, "Your sins are forgiven--go and sin no more," right?

Because people have a a view of the world according to their own innate preferences, and then contort the Bible to fit into that worldview. I've seen gay Christians argue that homosexuality is not a sin, and was only a sin for Levites; I've seen someone on here who is a nudist and argues it is the proper Biblical way to live; the confederate states argued that slavery was sanctioned by the Bible (which actually requires no twisting of the Bible). The list goes on.

Innate is a somewhat vague term, NV, which doesn't say a whole lot specifically, but rather leaves the meaning open to a whole lot of perceptual relativism. Additionally, for you to say that people contort the Bible, then you are implying that: 1) There is a correct way to interpret the bible, and 2) doesn't address the possibility that either you, or I, have innate preferences that get applied to how we try to 'read' the bible; one or the other of us could be, therefore, wrong in our interpretation--and it could also be that both of us, despite differences in reading the bible, are wrong at the same time.

Since you are obviously a fellow intellectual, I'd like to encourage you to broaden your knowledge base about the history and application of biblical interpretation, as opposed to simply assuming that whatever your dad or church taught you was irrefutably the 'right' way to perform exegesis.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

Nihilist Virus · Nov 26, 2015

2PhiloVoid said:
Actually, I find point 2 easily dismissible. It says, as you put it, "2.) If God is fair, he will give us all the chance to at least understand the rules." Well, point 2 sounds nice as an if/then statement, but anyone can see from the biblical writers use of prophesies, parables, hyperboles, and other figures of speech, along with assertions about God's is Sovereignty of choice, that He doesn't operate by way of a modern sense of Enlightenment fairness and/or rights. I take it that you have read the entire New Testament, right, NV?

You explicitly say that you recognize it purely "as an if/then statement," but then you go on to say it is incorrect because the "if" part is not true where you say, "...He doesn't operate by way of a modern sense of Enlightenment fairness and/or rights." That is not how you evaluate an "if..., then..." statement.

It is like you are saying something like "IF it is raining, THEN Charlie brings his umbrella," is wrong because it's not raining.

Your problem is with my third premise, where I say,

3.) God is fair (?)

and yet you are trying to double dip and say both of my premises are wrong when in reality you are only even addressing one of them.

As a former major in education, and a short term teacher, I would say 'yes' many people choose to be 'stupid,' (or uneducated) when dealing with the bible, if indeed they are being stupid (or uneducated). And for those persons living in the modernized countries, stupidity and remaining uneducated is a choice. So...in your case of approaching the bible with simplicity, that can be rectified, if you're willing. (Which shouldn't be too hard for you, since you're already learning other fields at higher levels.)

2PV... please... come on...

You are literally saying that no one is born stupid.

I don't. I take it to mean to be pliable about learning from Christ, with a good attitude, such as a typical child would at the knee of their elementary school teacher. What it doesn't imply is any kind of necessary uber-simplicity.

We have different interpretations of scripture. But if it is the word of God, why do we even have different interpretations?

If you'll take the time to read the text that contains the narrative of Jesus and Zaccheus, you'll see that Jesus was anything but "just fine" with Zaccheus' actions regarding money.

Huh? I didn't take the time to read the text because I read this:

2PhiloVoid said:
And, to put the icing on the cake, we then have to ask why Jesus didn't reprimand Zaccheus for ONLY giving HALF of his wealth to the poor (Luke 19:1-10).

So which is it? Was Jesus "anything but 'just fine'" with Zaccheus or are we asking "why Jesus didn't reprimand" him?

I gotta say 2PV... your responses to me on this thread aren't making a lick of sense.

Yeah, right. That's why Jesus would say things like, "Your sins are forgiven--go and sin no more," right?

Did you not notice how I put "fine" in quotations? So yes, he was "fine" with the adulteress's actions in that he rescued her from the righteous application of the law, but also gave her a little slap on the wrist.

Innate is a somewhat vague term, NV, which doesn't say a whole lot specifically, but rather leaves the meaning open to a whole lot of perceptual relativism. Additionally, for you to say that people contort the Bible, then you are implying that: 1) There is a correct way to interpret the bible, and 2) doesn't address the possibility that either you, or I, have innate preferences that get applied to how we try to 'read' the bible; one or the other of us could be, therefore, wrong in our interpretation--and it could also be that both of us, despite differences in reading the bible, are wrong at the same time.

It sounds like you're suggesting that there is no one correct way to interpret the Bible? If so, why critique my simplistic methodology which is backed up by a logical syllogism that you have swung and missed at?

Since you are obviously a fellow intellectual, I'd like to encourage you to broaden your knowledge base about the history and application of biblical interpretation, as opposed to simply assuming that whatever your dad or church taught you was irrefutably the 'right' way to perform exegesis.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

Sure thing, as soon as you make a genuine attempt at tackling my logical syllogism from post #69 instead of pathologically disagreeing with me to the point that you will claim that no one on earth is born stupid.

2PhiloVoid · Nov 27, 2015

NV,

Nihilist Virus said:
You explicitly say that you recognize it purely "as an if/then statement,"

No, I don't recognize your if/then statement in merely "pure" terms, NV. You’re the one who has added ‘purely’ as a qualifier.

...but then you go on to say it is incorrect because the "if" part is not true where you say, "...He doesn't operate by way of a modern sense of Enlightenment fairness and/or rights." That is not how you evaluate an "if..., then..." statement.

I apologize for the lack of clarity and my tenuous grasp of Logic, NV--I meant to dismiss the entirety of the second premise, since the second part of the IF/THEN statement is usually conditional to the first, and I thought you'd understand that. I was looking at your syllogism more within the parameters of this approach:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

Perhaps you were wanting to approach it more like this:
**********

A conditional statement, symbolized by p

q, is an if-then statement in which p is a hypothesis and q is a conclusion. The logical connector in a conditional statement is denoted by the symbol

. The conditional is defined to be true unless a true hypothesis leads to a false conclusion. A truth table for p

q is shown below.

p q p

q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

In the truth table above, p

q is only false when the hypothesis (p) is true and the conclusion (q) is false; otherwise it is true.

http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol9/conditional.html

**********
But I often find that I just KANT see that I need to always do so ...

As far as the second premise as a whole is concerned (for both the IF and the THEN portions), perhaps I could have said: God is not "fair," and neither does He give everyone the chance to “understand the rules," and both of these portions of the premise fail, as you wrote them, because they do not comport with biblical ideas, or with a modern sense of Enlightenment fairness and/or rights. So, while your second premise might be valid in that its structure seems to lead to premise 3, I just don't think the whole thing is also sound. I'll try to be clearer in the future ...

It is like you are saying something like "IF it is raining, THEN Charlie brings his umbrella," is wrong because it's not raining.
Your problem is with my third premise, where I say,…

Again, my apology. I see now that you were trying to create an extended argument, of sorts. But, as I said before, I disagree with each of your points, hypothesis and conclusion(s).

…and yet you are trying to double dip and say both of my premises are wrong when in reality you are only even addressing one of them.

double dip? Fine. I see that I'll have to be ultra-explicit with you. You apparently enjoy being technical on a very fine level, whereas I like to be more practical and just make general statements until requested to do otherwise.

2PV... please... come on...

Come on? While I admit that I don't have a Ph.D., and that I didn't take a Logic course, and while I may not have been an 'excellent' teacher, this by no means implies that I didn't do what I said I did. I did teach, and, by the way, I do have an education. So, you can "come on" about it all you want, NV. The truth remains, whether you can confirm it or not ...

You are literally saying that no one is born stupid.

Right. I've found that even so-called "stupid" people can learn; unless you're trying to infer that the term 'stupid' is synonymous with 'severe mental impairment.' How literal do you want to be about stupidity, NV?

We have different interpretations of scripture. But if it is the word of God, why do we even have different interpretations?

We have different interpretations of the Bible for some of the same reasons that people have different interpretations about any other literary works and/or narratives, or media---because there is a plethora of formative, emotional, and perceptual influences that bear upon each, individual human mind, as well as various nuances to the processes (and stages) of communication between individuals. But, if you want to work with a "Disney" definition of 'stupid,' then I can't stop you from doing so.

Huh? I didn't take the time to read the text because I read this:

Yes. I posed a question about Jesus' response to Zaccheus--there is an inconsistency in how Jesus addressed the Rich Young Ruler, on the one hand, and Zaccheus, on the other. It’s an inconsistency I thought you'd pick up on without my having to explicate. I guess I was wrong to assume you'd pick up on it. Or, was I?

So which is it? Was Jesus "anything but 'just fine'" with Zaccheus or are we asking "why Jesus didn't reprimand" him?

I don't see how these two concepts are incompatible. Please don’t assume that when I say “anything but just fine,” that I also necessarily intend to imply a negative response on Jesus’ part. Do you know what my point is, specifically in regard to the contrast between Jesus’ response to the Rich Young Ruler and that which was given to Zaccheus? You’re an academic, NV, so I’m going to go out on a limb and suppose that you can understand what I getting at.

I gotta say 2PV... your responses to me on this thread aren't making a lick of sense.

That’s fine if you feel that way, NV. I won’t take it to heart.

Did you not notice how I put "fine" in quotations? So yes, he was "fine" with the adulteress's actions in that he rescued her from the righteous application of the law, but also gave her a little slap on the wrist.

No, that wasn't a slap on the wrist; that was mercy and grace. They did teach you about mercy and grace at your former church, did they not?

It sounds like you're suggesting that there is no one correct way to interpret the Bible?

Well, if that was my intention, why did I mentioned anything about us reading different hermeneutical texts (as in textbooks)? [But, in a sense, you are correct about my view of interpreting the Bible, and I'll just go ahead and come out with it explicitly here--I don't think there is exactly one, and only one, official way to interpret the bible. Notice my key terms here: 1) one, and 2) official. So, there can be more than one, unofficial approach to interpreting the bible, even though we might want to assume that whatever way we do interpret the bible, it should be done with a notion of responsibility and integrity, by which I mean to say that interpretation is not, and should not, be allowed to remain as merely an individual effort.]

If so, why critique my simplistic methodology which is backed up by a logical syllogism that you have swung and missed at?

NV, don’t be so literal about my estimation of your methodology. Just because I said I think your interpretation of the bible seems a bit too simplistic doesn’t mean that I also think you're a simpleton. In fact, you’re anything but a simpleton, which makes all of this so much more interesting.

Sure thing, as soon as you make a genuine attempt at tackling my logical syllogism from post #69 instead of pathologically disagreeing with me to the point that you will claim that no one on earth is born stupid.

”Pathologically”? You have a quaint way with words, NV. I think the term “analytically” would be more appropriate, especially since I experienced very little (to nothing) in the way of any emotionally charged, or disturbed, mental reaction to your syllogism.

Now, am I to understand that you’d like for me to explain ‘why’ I disagree with each of the points in your syllogism? I’d be glad to do so, but here’s the thing. You’ve got your syllogism, but it, in and of itself, does not explain the ‘how’ (i.e. the hermeneutics) by which YOU came to the first premise, or to its implied meaning. Can you tell me how I ‘should be’ systematizing my thoughts or my biblical interpretations so I can see that the bible does indeed teach that “We are on this planet as a test to see if we are naughty or nice?” According to you, it should be simple to see. I, by contrast, think all of this 'bible stuff' is rather complex, so I must confess that I'm rather confused as to how you arrived at the assertion of the first premise, and as to why you would state that the so-called testing of humanity by God is properly placed as an initial premise.

Academically yours,
2PhiloVoid

Nihilist Virus · Nov 28, 2015

2PhiloVoid said:
NV,
No, I don't recognize your if/then statement in merely "pure" terms, NV. You’re the one who has added ‘purely’ as a qualifier.

Not sure how that makes any difference. I didn't quote you as saying such, it was my own paraphrasing. You said this, verbatim:

"Well, point 2 sounds nice as an if/then statement..."

So that sounds like what I was describing.

I apologize for the lack of clarity and my tenuous grasp of Logic, NV--I meant to dismiss the entirety of the second premise, since the second part of the IF/THEN statement is usually conditional to the first, and I thought you'd understand that. I was looking at your syllogism more within the parameters of this approach:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

A guy named Bool (do you have a name pun for him?) formalized logic, and the thing you are linking to there is a branch of the very same form of logic that I was using.

Perhaps you were wanting to approach it more like this:
**********

A conditional statement, symbolized by p

q, is an if-then statement in which p is a hypothesis and q is a conclusion. The logical connector in a conditional statement is denoted by the symbol

. The conditional is defined to be true unless a true hypothesis leads to a false conclusion. A truth table for p

q is shown below.

p q p

q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

In the truth table above, p

q is only false when the hypothesis (p) is true and the conclusion (q) is false; otherwise it is true.

http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol9/conditional.html

**********

Again, that is the same system of logic.

But I often find that I just KANT see that I need to always do so ...

If I constructed a logical syllogism, then you KANT avoid it.

As far as the second premise as a whole is concerned (for both the IF and the THEN portions), perhaps I could have said: God is not "fair," and neither does He give everyone the chance to “understand the rules," and both of these portions of the premise fail, as you wrote them, because they do not comport with biblical ideas, or with a modern sense of Enlightenment fairness and/or rights. So, while your second premise might be valid in that its structure seems to lead to premise 3, I just don't think the whole thing is also sound. I'll try to be clearer in the future ...

Let's look again at my premise:

"If God is fair, he will give us all the chance to at least understand the rules"

I would think that giving someone a chance to understand the rules is the absolute most basic requirement of fairness. So IF God is fair THEN he will ensure we understand the rules. EVEN IF you disagree with the "God is fair" part and the "he will ensure we understand the rules part," I am still presenting a logically valid and sound statement.

Also, your rejection of the idea that God gives everyone a chance to understand the rules is quite puzzling. You are saying that God will send someone to hell who did not understand what was necessary for salvation?

I guess that's true. All of the tribal people, for example, went centuries without ever hearing about the gospel. So you are saying that hundreds of generations of people on half of the globe all went to hell because they were born in a certain geographical location. Isn't that at least a little troubling?

Again, my apology. I see now that you were trying to create an extended argument, of sorts. But, as I said before, I disagree with each of your points, hypothesis and conclusion(s).

And how it is that you disagree that some people are born stupid is mind-blowing. Go ask your Christian friends, they will all agree with me.

double dip? Fine. I see that I'll have to be ultra-explicit with you. You apparently enjoy being technical on a very fine level, whereas I like to be more practical and just make general statements until requested to do otherwise.

There are no varying levels of technicality in the realm of logic so your statement doesn't make much sense to me.

Come on? While I admit that I don't have a Ph.D., and that I didn't take a Logic course, and while I may not have been an 'excellent' teacher, this by no means implies that I didn't do what I said I did. I did teach, and, by the way, I do have an education. So, you can "come on" about it all you want, NV. The truth remains, whether you can confirm it or not ...

My "2PV... please... come on..." incredulous remark was directed at your claim that no one is born stupid, not at your claim about your resume. I thought that was clear from the context. Here it is again, verbatim, no line breaks added or removed:

2PV... please... come on...

You are literally saying that no one is born stupid.

Moving on...

Right. I've found that even so-called "stupid" people can learn; unless you're trying to infer that the term 'stupid' is synonymous with 'severe mental impairment.' How literal do you want to be about stupidity, NV?

Well, we are being literal here. I think what you mean to be asking is how rigorous we ought to be about the metrics that define a stupid person. I'm not going to even entertain this notion because your refusal to admit that there are innately stupid people in the world is absurd, and I think the only reason this debate is even possible is because you are a compulsive contrarian.

We have different interpretations of the Bible for some of the same reasons that people have different interpretations about any other literary works and/or narratives, or media---because there is a plethora of formative, emotional, and perceptual influences that bear upon each, individual human mind, as well as various nuances to the processes (and stages) of communication between individuals.

And yet we have so few differing interpretations of scientific models... interesting.

But, if you want to work with a "Disney" definition of 'stupid,' then I can't stop you from doing so.

I know some stupid people and nothing about them is cartoonish.

Yes. I posed a question about Jesus' response to Zaccheus--there is an inconsistency in how Jesus addressed the Rich Young Ruler, on the one hand, and Zaccheus, on the other. It’s an inconsistency I thought you'd pick up on without my having to explicate. I guess I was wrong to assume you'd pick up on it. Or, was I?

Your assumption was that I would seek out the verse and read it, and you were wrong to assume such.

I don't see how these two concepts are incompatible. Please don’t assume that when I say “anything but just fine,” that I also necessarily intend to imply a negative response on Jesus’ part.

Well I am "anything but clear" about your goal here, what you are talking about, and etc.

Do you know what my point is, specifically in regard to the contrast between Jesus’ response to the Rich Young Ruler and that which was given to Zaccheus?

No, I don't know what your point is, primarily because I have no desire to go and read the passage. You are making this needlessly confusing. If you have a counterpoint to my thread, you should say it explicitly instead of dancing around the issue like this.

You’re an academic, NV, so I’m going to go out on a limb and suppose that you can understand what I getting at.

You went out on a limb and that branch broke. The good news, though, is that gravity is just a theory.

That’s fine if you feel that way, NV. I won’t take it to heart.

OK.

No, that wasn't a slap on the wrist; that was mercy and grace. They did teach you about mercy and grace at your former church, did they not?

Mercy and grace? Ah, the whimsical suspension of justice?

Well, if that was my intention, why did I mentioned anything about us reading different hermeneutical texts (as in textbooks)? [But, in a sense, you are correct about my view of interpreting the Bible, and I'll just go ahead and come out with it explicitly here--I don't think there is exactly one, and only one, official way to interpret the bible. Notice my key terms here: 1) one, and 2) official. So, there can be more than one, unofficial approach to interpreting the bible, even though we might want to assume that whatever way we do interpret the bible, it should be done with a notion of responsibility and integrity, by which I mean to say that interpretation is not, and should not, be allowed to remain as merely an individual effort.]

Sounds like a big ol' mess to me.

NV, don’t be so literal about my estimation of your methodology. Just because I said I think your interpretation of the bible seems a bit too simplistic doesn’t mean that I also think you're a simpleton. In fact, you’re anything but a simpleton, which makes all of this so much more interesting.

Well thank you, but I didn't say you said that. I said you critiqued my methodology.

”Pathologically”? You have a quaint way with words, NV. I think the term “analytically” would be more appropriate, especially since I experienced very little (to nothing) in the way of any emotionally charged, or disturbed, mental reaction to your syllogism.

I mean "pathological" as in compulsive. I'm doubling down on my claim that you are a compulsive contrarian.

Now, am I to understand that you’d like for me to explain ‘why’ I disagree with each of the points in your syllogism?

Technically speaking, you only have to falsify one of the premises to falsify the whole thing. Exhaustively falsifying each premise is sufficient but not necessary.

I’d be glad to do so, but here’s the thing. You’ve got your syllogism, but it, in and of itself, does not explain the ‘how’ (i.e. the hermeneutics) by which YOU came to the first premise, or to its implied meaning. Can you tell me how I ‘should be’ systematizing my thoughts or my biblical interpretations so I can see that the bible does indeed teach that “We are on this planet as a test to see if we are naughty or nice?”

The first premise is a caricature of the fundamental premise of Christianity, that is, that you must accept Christ as your Lord and savior or else go to hell for all eternity. Do really I need to explain how I came to this premise or its implied meaning?

According to you, it should be simple to see. I, by contrast, think all of this 'bible stuff' is rather complex, so I must confess that I'm rather confused as to how you arrived at the assertion of the first premise, and as to why you would state that the so-called testing of humanity by God is properly placed as an initial premise.

So is what I just said above false?

GrowingSmaller · Nov 28, 2015

I did it. I even gave away my sleeping bag. In zero degree temperature in jeans and jumper. Note sure if I ever got down to absolutely no pennies whatsoever though. Maybe once, IIRC vaguely. When I drank rain water from a puddle..

Now, the fact that you will all look on this with laughter scorn ridicule and contempt (probably) shows something about the faith you adhere to.

Why are there no extremist Christians?

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

The Librarian

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dragonsworn

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Muslm Humanist

Similar threads