Why are there no extremist Christians?

[Tina W]

What, like Benedictines, Augustinians, Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Jesuits, Missionaries of Charity, etc.?

(From the linked compendium: "Note: The above lists are substantially incomplete. They currently only include orders with members who are/were bishops.")

True.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I would think of an extremist Christian as one who sells all that he owns, gives his money to the poor, and wanders the world to preach the gospel and do good works. This was not an impossible task for John the Baptist, and he didn't even have the gospel to work with.

You can disagree that such a thing is what constitutes an extremist Christian, but my question still stands: why is there no one on earth doing this?

From a Lutheran perspective the Christian life is lived through vocation. Certainly, for some, that might look like St. Anthony the Great or St. Francis of Assisi. However neither St. Anthony nor St. Francis are better or more spiritual for their vocation than the single mother struggling to raise her two children; for her vocation is as holy and spiritual as any of the great monastics of the past.

The Christian life doesn't look like any one way, it takes on many forms depending on how and where we find ourselves--and such Christian life is lived in those circumstances through the ministrations of our vocation, to be faithful disciples. Whether a St. John the Baptist, a St. Anthony, or the single mother, the hard working ditch digger, or the physician.

Because the Christian life is never lived alone, our spirituality isn't found in ourselves; individually we have many gifts and vocations, but it is together as the Church centered and gathered around Word and Sacrament that we are people of God. Christian spirituality, fundamentally, looks like repentant sinners confessing their sins, hearing God's word of forgiveness, being jointed together in Christ in His Supper, and living out Christian life in any given circumstance.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LaSorcia]

Look up 'The Jesus Guy'. Regardless what you think of him, he's surely interesting.

Also, thanks to Medievalism, people seem to think that Christians are:
1-Supposed to be financially poor.
2-Or at least not allowed to be financially rich.
3-Having abundant resources is a sin for Christians, but ok for others.

I recommend reading the Orthodox classic The Way of a Pilgrim. In that book, the pilgrim meets a prosperous family who use their means to help the homeless and alcoholics and provide hospitality. It is possible to have a family life, with prosperity and still live the gospel. I really admired that family in the book and think of it as a template for Christian family life. My family has kept 5 people from homelessness. I don't mind saying, as you will never know who I am in real life.

 

[Hetta]

Matthew 6:25-34

That scripture is basically impossible for anyone to fulfill other than the truly holy and completely single. When people have children, they don't get to neglect or fail those kids by throwing aside everything and spending every penny on others. This is where the spirit of the scripture should be observed, rather than a literal interpretation. In fact, I don't interpret much of the Bible literally at all (if any). If people did live this kind of life, they would unlikely to have anything to give away any longer. I would rather donate money and time to help those who are in need and, incidentally, to vote for the party that I believe is more invested in helping those in need. Homeless people don't have a vote.

 

[Cearbhall]

I would think of an extremist Christian as one who sells all that he owns, gives his money to the poor, and wanders the world to preach the gospel and do good works. This was not an impossible task for John the Baptist, and he didn't even have the gospel to work with.

You can disagree that such a thing is what constitutes an extremist Christian, but my question still stands: why is there no one on earth doing this?

There are Christians who do this. There are Muslims who do this. There are Muslims who are extremist in bad ways. There are Christians who are extremist in bad ways.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

From a Lutheran perspective the Christian life is lived through vocation. Certainly, for some, that might look like St. Anthony the Great or St. Francis of Assisi. However neither St. Anthony nor St. Francis are better or more spiritual for their vocation than the single mother struggling to raise her two children; for her vocation is as holy and spiritual as any of the great monastics of the past.

1 Corinthians 7:8

Did not read the rest as I assume error carried forward.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In fact, I don't interpret much of the Bible literally at all (if any).

So you believe that Jesus never literally existed?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Look up 'The Jesus Guy'. Regardless what you think of him, he's surely interesting.

Also, thanks to Medievalism, people seem to think that Christians are:
1-Supposed to be financially poor.
2-Or at least not allowed to be financially rich.
3-Having abundant resources is a sin for Christians, but ok for others.

I recommend reading the Orthodox classic The Way of a Pilgrim. In that book, the pilgrim meets a prosperous family who use their means to help the homeless and alcoholics and provide hospitality. It is possible to have a family life, with prosperity and still live the gospel. I really admired that family in the book and think of it as a template for Christian family life. My family has kept 5 people from homelessness. I don't mind saying, as you will never know who I am in real life.

But you are supposed to be poor. Rich people don't get into heaven.

 

[ViaCrucis]

1 Corinthians 7:8

Did not read the rest as I assume error carried forward.

I can play that game too.

1 Corinthians 7:7

It helps to pay attention to the text rather than just quote-mine.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Look up 'The Jesus Guy'. Regardless what you think of him, he's surely interesting.

Thank you for finding an extremist Christian. I am amused that you feel the need to provide the "Regardless what you think of him," part. He is really the only kind of Christian I have much respect for. Everyone else just believes half heartedly and selectively follows scripture to their own benefit. I wish everyone was either like him or else atheist.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I can play that game too.

1 Corinthians 7:7

It helps to pay attention to the text rather than just quote-mine.

-CryptoLutheran

1. The chapter is clearly saying that it is best to not be married
2. This thread is about extremist Christianity
3. You are wrong

 

[ViaCrucis]

1. The chapter is clearly saying that it is best to not be married
2. This thread is about extremist Christianity
3. You are wrong

1. Yes, that is certainly St. Paul's opinion on the subject, but he's rather clear that he's not giving a commandment that all must follow.

2. I understand what the thread is about,

3. Incorrect, I have a functioning understanding of what's going on in 1 Corinthians 7 as response to the circumstantial problems facing the Corinthian community. Pagan converts to Christianity were continuing some of their former practices, including temple prostitution (porneia, often translated as "fornication" or "sexual immorality" but literally "prostitution"); there were even things far worse such as an instance where a man was having an affair with his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5:1). Thus the Apostle explains that while he thought a life of celibacy was better (not a commandment by the way, he is quite clear that it is just his opinion), he still believed it better to be married than to burn with desire (ch. 7, v. 9)

You can cover your ears and sing "la la la" and then do your little victory dance proclaiming you've won the argument; but the fact remains that you haven't and rather than engaging with the text in question you're really just engaging in meaningless proof-texting. I presume in order to continue your straw idea of of the "extremist Christian".

I consider it noteworthy that you rather intentionally refused to even address the substance of my initial post, but chose instead to go the route you did instead. Not a particularly fruitful way to have a meaningful discourse now is it?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nihilist Virus]

1. Yes, that is certainly St. Paul's opinion on the subject, but he's rather clear that he's not giving a commandment that all must follow.

So it is optional? Going above and beyond? Is that what you mean?

2. I understand what the thread is about,

Then you understand that nothing less than going above and beyond is acceptable here.

3. Incorrect, I have a functioning understanding of what's going on in 1 Corinthians 7 as response to the circumstantial problems facing the Corinthian community. Pagan converts to Christianity were continuing some of their former practices, including temple prostitution (porneia, often translated as "fornication" or "sexual immorality" but literally "prostitution"); there were even things far worse such as an instance where a man was having an affair with his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5:1). Thus the Apostle explains that while he thought a life of celibacy was better (not a commandment by the way, he is quite clear that it is just his opinion), he still believed it better to be married than to burn with desire (ch. 7, v. 9)

Is it or is it not better to not get married?

Wouldn't an extremist Christian do whatever God (or Paul) thinks is better?

You can cover your ears and sing "la la la" and then do your little victory dance proclaiming you've won the argument; but the fact remains that you haven't and rather than engaging with the text in question you're really just engaging in meaningless proof-texting. I presume in order to continue your straw idea of of the "extremist Christian".

Again, it seems quite clear that it is best not to be married. I provided the verse that says this explicitly. What you are doing is reading some of the surrounding text which does not make this point and then you are trying to say you are onto something. Well, guess what, the reason the point is not made in the passages you cite is because it was already made. Does Paul have to repeat himself?

I consider it noteworthy that you rather intentionally refused to even address the substance of my initial post, but chose instead to go the route you did instead. Not a particularly fruitful way to have a meaningful discourse now is it?

I did not intentionally refuse to address the substance of your initial post but rather I did not even read it, and I told you as much. Also, your contributions to my other threads seem to be tangential at best. Stick to the point and don't be factually in error, and we can have meaningful conversation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Now that is cleared up, I have to say I find it fascinating that you and I have to work so hard to understand each other, with each of us attempting to navigate through each others intended meanings...and we're not even reading the Bible.

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.

Yes, I am aware that these things are connected and reflect the same conceptual structures. Yet, I'll be honest and concede that you very likely have the jump on me in this field.

Again, that is the same system of logic.

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

"sigh." My point is that since I deem the Bible as a form of Metaphysics, then a more Kantian approach will reach some different conclusions that say, a more Cartesian, Humean, or Positivist approach.

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.

That's not my understanding about soundness; for it to be sound, it has to be true. I don't think either portion of the statement is true.

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?

Yes and No. I think God delivers understanding according to His sovereign choice and according to our cooperative hearts. As far as the concept of Hell is concerned---I'm more of an Annihilationist, so you can guess already that I'll posit a different conclusion to the matter.

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?

Not really. I try not to assume that God has zero latitude in how He distributes truth, or in His allotment of justice.

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.

Again, what is your definition of the term, "stupid"? Moreover, I'd rather view people in a more hopeful and humanitarian vein than simply assume that those who appear to act stupidly will remain in some ongoing state of stupidity--although, I have seem some cases that make one wonder.

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

I'm not overly concerned about logic itself. I'm more concerned about it's limits.

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:

Moving on...

Yes. Moving on ....

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.

A "compulsive contrarian"? Sounds like an 'Ad Hominem' to me, but I won't hold it against you.

Let me add this to your evaluation of my mental complex: It's likely that you and I have simply become 'read' in different fields, with different upbringings, with different lines of research, and we have thus come to different conclusions about the nature and structure of Christian faith.

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

Really? So, are you one of those who dispense with the Nature of Science discussion? I don't.

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

The question is: will they remain stupid? (Or do you equate stupidity with severe mental impairment?)

Your assumption was that I would seek out the verse and read it, and you were wrong to assume such.
Well I am "anything but clear" about your goal here, what you are talking about, and etc.
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.

The point is: Jesus commended Zaccheus for giving half of his fortune to the poor, and Jesus made no further suggestion to him that he need give the remaining half away. The overall point: giving 'all' away is not what Jesus is looking for---rather, He wants each of us to have a generous heart instead of one that is greedy and self-centered. (And yes, many people who call themselves 'Christian' fail in doing even this, even for their own families.)

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

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

Sounds like a big ol' mess to me.

Now you're getting it!

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

Well, it is a bit simplistic, that is, a bit too literal.

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

I'm glad you've got me figured out; and you were kind enough to not charge for your services.

Technically speaking, you only have to falsify one of the premises to falsify the whole thing.

That's what I was trying to do, and why, two posts back, I didn't feel the need to be explicit. But, I'll let you lead the way on the use of logic.

Exhaustively falsifying each premise is sufficient but not necessary.

Ok. I shan't do that again.

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?

Is this a test question?

So is what I just said above false?

So, a generic statement about "God's testing" (i.e. your first premise), and our need to "believe in Christ" are ... the same?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Now that is cleared up, I have to say I find it fascinating that you and I have to work so hard to understand each other, with each of us attempting to navigate through each others intended meanings...and we're not even reading the Bible.

Well not to be a jerk but I do think it's mostly on your end.

Yes, I am aware that these things are connected and reflect the same conceptual structures. Yet, I'll be honest and concede that you very likely have the jump on me in this field.

OK.

"sigh." My point is that since I deem the Bible as a form of Metaphysics, then a more Kantian approach will reach some different conclusions that say, a more Cartesian, Humean, or Positivist approach.

If you want to address my logical syllogism, you KANT use those other approaches.

That's not my understanding about soundness; for it to be sound, it has to be true. I don't think either portion of the statement is true.

Your understanding of soundness is correct, but you are misapplying it. I think you are referring to this:

A valid argument may still have a false conclusion. When we construct our arguments, we must aim to construct one that is not only valid, but sound. A sound argument is one that is not only valid, but begins with premises that are actually true. The example given about toasters is valid, but not sound.

Entirely correct. However, in any "if..., then..." statement, the "if" part is not a premise and the "then" part is not a conclusion. How can "if God is fair," be true by itself? How can "then God will do such and such," be true by itself? They are each part of the same statement and are meaningless by themselves; a premise or conclusion is a standalone statement that is brought into an argument. The entire "if..., then..." is one statement, so it is only either a premise or a conclusion, and cannot be both ("if..., then..." statements are almost always premises, though). For example,

If X, then Y.
X.
Therefore, Y.

Here, Y is the conclusion, and both "If X, then Y" and X are premises.


So once again, the most basic requirement of fairness is that you allow the players to understand the rules. So if X is fair, then X allows the players to understand the rules. This is true, valid, and sound regardless of what you plug in for X. In statements like this, it is the IF and the THEN part that is evaluated, not the X that is plugged in.

I guess you disproved my syllogism when you said that God is not fair (which I did identify as the weakest premise, denoted by the (?)). Keep in mind that you are adding the stipulation that God is not fair in the enlightened sense of the word, which is an added restriction that was not present in my original argument, so if you are saying God is not fair then you mean that he is not fair in any sense of the word. Making this claim is a steep price to pay for you to be able to claim victory, I'd reckon.

Yes and No. I think God delivers understanding according to His sovereign choice and according to our cooperative hearts. As far as the concept of Hell is concerned---I'm more of an Annihilationist, so you can guess already that I'll posit a different conclusion to the matter.

Annihilation of the soul? So all that jazz about the guy begging for a drop of water meant what, and who was the intended audience?

Not really. I try not to assume that God has zero latitude in how He distributes truth, or in His allotment of justice.

Huh?

Again, what is your definition of the term, "stupid"? Moreover, I'd rather view people in a more hopeful and humanitarian vein than simply assume that those who appear to act stupidly will remain in some ongoing state of stupidity--although, I have seem some cases that make one wonder.

Bro. You are flat out wrong, there are stupid people in the world who wish to be smart and are not stupid by their own choices. Period, end of discussion.

I'm not overly concerned about logic itself. I'm more concerned about it's limits.

Logic's limits are quite strangling. Have you forgotten that you're talking to a nihilist? Allow me to quote myself from another of my threads:

"Logic and mathematics are the use of terms that have no meaning which are said to be expressing an unverifiable assumption that is then used to conditionally prove another arbitrary statement which also decomposes into terms that have no meaning."

Logic has no actual meaning, so its limits are whatever you like them to be.

Yes. Moving on ....

A "compulsive contrarian"? Sounds like an 'Ad Hominem' to me, but I won't hold it against you.

An ad hominem is where you attack someone's character, and then conclude their argument is invalid because of the attacks you levied against them.

What I did was outright reject your claim that no innately stupid people exist, and when I saw you were sticking to your guns I said you are a compulsive contrarian.

So basically, an ad hominem is X because Y, whereas what I did was Y because X.

Let me add this to your evaluation of my mental complex: It's likely that you and I have simply become 'read' in different fields, with different upbringings, with different lines of research, and we have thus come to different conclusions about the nature and structure of Christian faith.

Agreed.

Really? So, are you one of those who dispense with the Nature of Science discussion? I don't.

I'm not sure what you mean by that question.

The question is: will they remain stupid? (Or do you equate stupidity with severe mental impairment?)

I don't want to continue to engage you in this discussion about stupidity unless you can get other people on here to post and agree with you that no one on earth is born stupid. Because it feels like I'm arguing with a flat earther or something. You simply hold a position that no one on this flat earth believes in.

The point is: Jesus commended Zaccheus for giving half of his fortune to the poor, and Jesus made no further suggestion to him that he need give the remaining half away. The overall point: giving 'all' away is not what Jesus is looking for---rather, He wants each of us to have a generous heart instead of one that is greedy and self-centered. (And yes, many people who call themselves 'Christian' fail in doing even this, even for their own families.)

So then if Jesus commended him, why did you say he was "anything but fine" with what he did? You say you stick to generalities and don't go overly technical unless you have to*, but you are definitely going overly technical on me here. Yes, you are technically correct if you want to say that Jesus was anything but fine with those actions and by that mean that Jesus approved of them, but you are twisting common language when I was not expecting it. I did not have my metal detector out for that landmine.

*I am referring to your quote from post #78:

"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."

Now you're getting it!

OK.

Well, it is a bit simplistic, that is, a bit too literal.

If you want to stop being literal, where does that end? Was Jesus' whole life figurative? You already said hell is figurative. If heaven is also, then the forgiveness of sins is somewhat meaningless, which suggests Jesus was figurative and only showing us a good way to live? I know you don't believe this, since if the point of the story was to tell us how to live then your objections to the very premise of this thread would be entirely unfounded. I'm simply asking you where you draw the line between figurative and literal, and what method you are using to discern between the two.

I'm glad you've got me figured out; and you were kind enough to not charge for your services.

I assumed the check was in the mail.

That's what I was trying to do, and why, two posts back, I didn't feel the need to be explicit. But, I'll let you lead the way on the use of logic. Ok. I shan't do that again.

You have defeated my argument at the cost of admitting that God is not fair.

Is this a test question?

So, a generic statement about "God's testing" (i.e. your first premise), and our need to "believe in Christ" are ... the same?

I already said the first premise was stating as a caricature. It is quite factual that Christianity claims that life on earth is essentially a test to see whether you accept or reject Christ.

 

[Hetta]

So you believe that Jesus never literally existed?

I believe he existed - and continues to exist. I believe that God also exists. The stories in the Bible, however, have been passed from mouth to mouth, language to language, and while some of the stories that were obviously meant as metaphor have been retained as metaphor, others have been interpreted literally. That's just what I think.

 

[Hetta]

Thank you for finding an extremist Christian. I am amused that you feel the need to provide the "Regardless what you think of him," part. He is really the only kind of Christian I have much respect for. Everyone else just believes half heartedly and selectively follows scripture to their own benefit. I wish everyone was either like him or else atheist.

That's too much to expect - for people to be either atheists or Jesus. There has to be room inbetween.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I believe he existed - and continues to exist. I believe that God also exists. The stories in the Bible, however, have been passed from mouth to mouth, language to language, and while some of the stories that were obviously meant as metaphor have been retained as metaphor, others have been interpreted literally. That's just what I think.

Of everything I said, I don't know why you picked that out. I explicitly went on to say that I don't believe 2PhiloVoid is saying that is the case - I was using it as an extreme consequence of taking the Bible figuratively, and I just wanted to know where the line is between figurative and literal. For me, something is figurative only if it cannot be taken literally in any way.

That's too much to expect - for people to be either atheists or Jesus. There has to be room inbetween.

I agree it's too much to expect that you be Jesus.

I expect you to TRY. And no one is even doing that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well not to be a jerk but I do think it's mostly on your end.
OK. If you want to address my logical syllogism, you KANT use those other approaches.

Care to explain why I KANT?

Your understanding of soundness is correct, but you are misapplying it. I think you are referring to this:

A valid argument may still have a false conclusion. When we construct our arguments, we must aim to construct one that is not only valid, but sound. A sound argument is one that is not only valid, but begins with premises that are actually true. The example given about toasters is valid, but not sound.

Entirely correct. However, in any "if..., then..." statement, the "if" part is not a premise and the "then" part is not a conclusion. How can "if God is fair," be true by itself? How can "then God will do such and such," be true by itself? They are each part of the same statement and are meaningless by themselves; a premise or conclusion is a standalone statement that is brought into an argument. The entire "if..., then..." is one statement, so it is only either a premise or a conclusion, and cannot be both ("if..., then..." statements are almost always premises, though). For example,

If X, then Y.
X.
Therefore, Y.

Here, Y is the conclusion, and both "If X, then Y" and X are premises.

So once again, the most basic requirement of fairness is that you allow the players to understand the rules. So if X is fair, then X allows the players to understand the rules. This is true, valid, and sound regardless of what you plug in for X. In statements like this, it is the IF and the THEN part that is evaluated, not the X that is plugged in.

Nice explication and refresher. My rusty left hemisphere thanks you.

I guess you disproved my syllogism when you said that God is not fair (which I did identify as the weakest premise, denoted by the (?)). Keep in mind that you are adding the stipulation that God is not fair in the enlightened sense of the word, which is an added restriction that was not present in my original argument, so if you are saying God is not fair then you mean that he is not fair in any sense of the word. Making this claim is a steep price to pay for you to be able to claim victory, I'd reckon.

Right. I'm implying that God does not value fairness as a prime directive in His Sovereign rule of humanity. Some lesser level of fairness may have its place, but it won't be valued by God in a way that is necessarily appealing or gratifying to our human sensibilities and mortal bodies.

Annihilation of the soul? So all that jazz about the guy begging for a drop of water meant what, and who was the intended audience?

There's a number of theological concepts that have to be considered with personal eschatology, and I for one do not pretend to have it 'all figured out,' but I do think that, in the end, annihilation is where it ends for unbelievers. We can sit here all day and posit possibilities: 1) Abraham's Bosom *is* a literal place, 2) Abraham's Bosom *was* a literal place, but is now empty, or, 3) Hades (Hell) is a permanent place of torment, or 4) Hades will eventually be dispensed with and destroyed, or 5) Unbelievers die; that's that!, or 6) some other interpretation.

As for myself, I'm not so decisive--I just think that in the end, whatever shape or form by which eschatology proceeds, unbelievers at some point cease, for various other reasons and interpretations I glean from the Bible.

Huh?

...God could send an angel, or a dream, or some other process of communication, if He so desires. Sure, Paul said 'Faith comes by hearing,' but the context in which he said that was in reference to the fact that the Jewish leadership should have, could have, understood that Jesus was the Messiah.

Bro. You are flat out wrong, there are stupid people in the world who wish to be smart and are not stupid by their own choices. Period, end of discussion.

Flat out assertion solves everything, doesn't it? [By the way, you never did denote your meaning for 'stupidity,' other that assert a Buzz Lightyear rhetoric. I'm gathering that you feel you're perhaps surrounded by a world of idiots?]

Logic's limits are quite strangling. Have you forgotten that you're talking to a nihilist? Allow me to quote myself from another of my threads:

"Logic and mathematics are the use of terms that have no meaning which are said to be expressing an unverifiable assumption that is then used to conditionally prove another arbitrary statement which also decomposes into terms that have no meaning."

Logic has no actual meaning, so its limits are whatever you like them to be.

So, why follow up your earlier citation of two loosely used scriptures with a deductive syllogism? If you're a Nihilist, that is.

An ad hominem is where you attack someone's character, and then conclude their argument is invalid because of the attacks you levied against them.

What I did was outright reject your claim that no innately stupid people exist, and when I saw you were sticking to your guns I said you are a compulsive contrarian.

So basically, an ad hominem is X because Y, whereas what I did was Y because X.

Oh. Thanks for the clarification; now I know that I have a problem with being complusively contrarian, and it's not just that my arguments stink. That makes me feel so much better...

I'm not sure what you mean by that question.

I don't want to continue to engage you in this discussion about stupidity unless you can get other people on here to post and agree with you that no one on earth is born stupid. Because it feels like I'm arguing with a flat earther or something. You simply hold a position that no one on this flat earth believes in.

Yeah right, like that's going to happen ...

So then if Jesus commended him, why did you say he was "anything but fine" with what he did? You say you stick to generalities and don't go overly technical unless you have to*, but you are definitely going overly technical on me here. Yes, you are technically correct if you want to say that Jesus was anything but fine with those actions and by that mean that Jesus approved of them, but you are twisting common language when I was not expecting it. I did not have my metal detector out for that landmine.

*I am referring to your quote from post #78:

"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."

Better get that metal detector out ...

If you want to stop being literal, where does that end? Was Jesus' whole life figurative? You already said hell is figurative. If heaven is also, then the forgiveness of sins is somewhat meaningless, which suggests Jesus was figurative and only showing us a good way to live? I know you don't believe this, since if the point of the story was to tell us how to live then your objections to the very premise of this thread would be entirely unfounded. I'm simply asking you where you draw the line between figurative and literal, and what method you are using to discern between the two.

The method is called "reading," ... and applying various interpretive principles from a conglomeration of scholars. There's not too much that I pull from my own behind, NV.

I assumed the check was in the mail.

Someone told me once what happens when we assume.

You have defeated my argument at the cost of admitting that God is not fair.

And I thought the Black Friday sale was over; how generous of you for the extended discounts!

I already said the first premise was stating as a caricature. It is quite factual that Christianity claims that life on earth is essentially a test to see whether you accept or reject Christ.

I don't think I'd call it a test; the test comes AFTER you accept Christ, to see if you can hang tough.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Care to explain why I KANT?

Can you checkmate your opponent by simply arranging the board to your liking without moving in accordance with the rules?

Nice explication and refresher. My rusty left hemisphere thanks you.

Right. I'm implying that God does not value fairness as a prime directive in His Sovereign rule of humanity. Some lesser level of fairness may have its place, but it won't be valued by God in a way that is necessarily appealing or gratifying to our human sensibilities and mortal bodies.

Awesome. What other bad qualities should we be made aware of?

There's a number of theological concepts that have to be considered with personal eschatology, and I for one do not pretend to have it 'all figured out,' but I do think that, in the end, annihilation is where it ends for unbelievers. We can sit here all day and posit possibilities: 1) Abraham's Bosom *is* a literal place, 2) Abraham's Bosom *was* a literal place, but is now empty, or, 3) Hades (Hell) is a permanent place of torment, or 4) Hades will eventually be dispensed with and destroyed, or 5) Unbelievers die; that's that!, or 6) some other interpretation.

You didn't really answer my question.

As for myself, I'm not so decisive--I just think that in the end, whatever shape or form by which eschatology proceeds, unbelievers at some point cease, for various other reasons and interpretations I glean from the Bible.

What is the need for this to be true? If God sees no reason to be fair, can't he send people to hell who were born in a time and place where they had zero chance of hearing the gospel?

...God could send an angel, or a dream, or some other process of communication, if He so desires. Sure, Paul said 'Faith comes by hearing,' but the context in which he said that was in reference to the fact that the Jewish leadership should have, could have, understood that Jesus was the Messiah.

So if some guy told you he had a dream and in it God talked to him, what would you say?

Flat out assertion solves everything, doesn't it? [By the way, you never did denote your meaning for 'stupidity,' other that assert a Buzz Lightyear rhetoric. I'm gathering that you feel you're perhaps surrounded by a world of idiots?]

So, why follow up your earlier citation of two loosely used scriptures with a deductive syllogism? If you're a Nihilist, that is.

Why use logic if I know it is not absolutely true and has no actual meaning? Because my audience thinks it is absolutely true and has meaning.

Oh. Thanks for the clarification; now I know that I have a problem with being complusively contrarian, and it's not just that my arguments stink. That makes me feel so much better...

You are taking this to epic levels. Admitting you were wrong on certain things to shed your contrarian label only to double down on your claim that there are no innately stupid people. It's quite fascinating to watch.

I see your bluff and raise you these stupid tweets:

4

Yeah right, like that's going to happen ...


Better get that metal detector out ...

The method is called "reading," ... and applying various interpretive principles from a conglomeration of scholars. There's not too much that I pull from my own behind, NV.

Someone told me once what happens when we assume.

And I thought the Black Friday sale was over; how generous of you for the extended discounts!

I don't think I'd call it a test; the test comes AFTER you accept Christ, to see if you can hang tough.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

Checkmate in two moves...