Why are there no extremist Christians?

[2PhiloVoid]

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

I can if I have Wittgenstein at my side.

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

Oh, there's also the typical citation of God's having a proneness to "jealousy" and "a bad temper."

You didn't really answer my question.

Here's an answer: The mistake is to assume that the passage in Luke 16:14-31 has something to do with Metaphysics when it is really indicating something about Epistemology and Human Psychology. On top of this, some scholars posit that it is a parable, and if so, then that makes its focus even less metaphysical in nature. But, if you don't 'want' to read it, then I see little or no reason to discuss this particular point further.

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 has His choice of us figured somewhere into His final "equation."

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

I'd ask what the nature of the dream was, and what he perceives God said to Him, all the while remaining skeptical ... but, regardless all of that, my point about God's having latitude in communication, along with the one I made about Paul, seems to have been lost on you, NV. I'm hoping you'll be able to salvage something from what I've said.

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.

Which audience? The CF audience? All of the CF audience?

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'm glad I could provide you with entertainment more palatable to your pseudo-Vulcan taste.

I see your bluff and raise you these stupid tweets:
Checkmate in two moves...

Maybe I should inform you that I grew up with a mother who had schizophrenia; which means I had to learn how to handle someone's "nuttiness" on various levels, and which, in retrospect, makes dealing with other people's "stupidity" (or lack of education) seem quite easy by comparison.

But enjoy the chess game, NV. I know I will.

2PhiloVoid

 

[zippy2006]

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?

"Hoarding habits of the Vatican." I don't buy into conspiracy theories. If the fact that the Vatican has priceless art is sufficient for you to deny its Christian nature, then we have a problem with the subject rather than the object.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

"Hoarding habits of the Vatican." I don't buy into conspiracy theories. If the fact that the Vatican has priceless art is sufficient for you to deny its Christian nature, then we have a problem with the subject rather than the object.

Meaning what?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I can if I have Wittgenstein at my side.

Oh, there's also the typical citation of God's having a proneness to "jealousy" and "a bad temper."

Here's an answer: The mistake is to assume that the passage in Luke 16:14-31 has something to do with Metaphysics when it is really indicating something about Epistemology and Human Psychology. On top of this, some scholars posit that it is a parable, and if so, then that makes its focus even less metaphysical in nature. But, if you don't 'want' to read it, then I see little or no reason to discuss this particular point further.

God has His choice of us figured somewhere into His final "equation."

I'd ask what the nature of the dream was, and what he perceives God said to Him, all the while remaining skeptical ... but, regardless all of that, my point about God's having latitude in communication, along with the one I made about Paul, seems to have been lost on you, NV. I'm hoping you'll be able to salvage something from what I've said.

Which audience? The CF audience? All of the CF audience?

My audience is people in general. Almost everyone, Christian or otherwise, believes that principles in mathematics are absolutely true.

I'm glad I could provide you with entertainment more palatable to your pseudo-Vulcan taste.



Maybe I should inform you that I grew up with a mother who had schizophrenia; which means I had to learn how to handle someone's "nuttiness" on various levels, and which, in retrospect, makes dealing with other people's "stupidity" (or lack of education) seem quite easy by comparison.

But enjoy the chess game, NV. I know I will.

2PhiloVoid

Just like the last thread where we talked about contradictions, you're showing that your beliefs are so elastic that you would believe essentially no matter what I say or do. I do not know what you hang your faith on, what motivates you to continue, whether you believe in heaven, and most of all I still simply do not comprehend how it is that you still equivocate stupidity with academic ignorance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My audience is people in general. Almost everyone, Christian or otherwise, believes that principles in mathematics are absolutely true.

Do they? I've been under the impression for some time that fairly smart individuals, like Kurt Gödel or Morris Kline, have thought otherwise. Of course, I'm sure you already know all about this and could teach me a thing or two.

Just like the last thread where we talked about contradictions, you're showing that your beliefs are so elastic that you would believe essentially no matter what I say or do.

...metaphorically speaking, I rather like to think of my Christian beliefs as "expansive," propelling me away from the outer rim of the event horizon that forms in the wake of the mega-supernova of faith. Others who don't catch the wave of faith typically fold back up and plunge into the black hole of doubt and decay; for them, faith is an uneventful horizon.

I do not know what you hang your faith on...

Hang? Who said anything about 'hanging'? It sounds like you expect a public execution rather than a discussion about epistemology.

So, no. I'm not a Foundationalist when it comes to theology. Foundationalism is an 'ok' approach if you one plans to undertake a Mission to Mars, but it's a bit wobbly for reaching the face of God.

... what motivates you to continue?

death and taxes motivate me...

...whether you believe in heaven

Heaven? Well, I do believe in resurrection and eternal life!

... and most of all I still simply do not comprehend how it is that you still equivocate stupidity with academic ignorance.

Oh, get over it, NV! Of course I think there are ridiculous people out there in the world. It's just that I like to hold out a bit of hope for everyone, that's all...

2PhiloVoid

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Do they? I've been under the impression for some time that fairly smart individuals, like Kurt Gödel or Morris Kline, have thought otherwise. Of course, I'm sure you already know all about this and could teach me a thing or two.

Well I say this based on every person I've ever talked to. I say this based on a debate I watched between Matt Slick and Matt Dilahunty, where Slick assumed as a basic premise that logic is in some sense absolute, and Dilahunty did not object to that specific point. Most people simply do not understand when I try to explain that all of logic and mathematics is nothing but assumptions and definitions, and then of course the conclusions that follow. I try to explain that no new information can come from assumptions or definitions, and that all conclusions are conditional upon the unverifiable assumptions.

...metaphorically speaking, I rather like to think of my Christian beliefs as "expansive," propelling me away from the outer rim of the event horizon that forms in the wake of the mega-supernova of faith. Others who don't catch the wave of faith typically fold back up and plunge into the black hole of doubt and decay; for them, faith is an uneventful horizon.

Hang? Who said anything about 'hanging'? It sounds like you expect a public execution rather than a discussion about epistemology.

So, no. I'm not a Foundationalist when it comes to theology. Foundationalism is an 'ok' approach if you one plans to undertake a Mission to Mars, but it's a bit wobbly for reaching the face of God.

death and taxes motivate me...

Heaven? Well, I do believe in resurrection and eternal life!

Oh, get over it, NV! Of course I think there are ridiculous people out there in the world. It's just that I like to hold out a bit of hope for everyone, that's all...

2PhiloVoid

Not sure what you're saying with the rest of this here...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well I say this based on every person I've ever talked to. I say this based on a debate I watched between Matt Slick and Matt Dilahunty, where Slick assumed as a basic premise that logic is in some sense absolute, and Dilahunty did not object to that specific point. Most people simply do not understand when I try to explain that all of logic and mathematics is nothing but assumptions and definitions, and then of course the conclusions that follow. I try to explain that no new information can come from assumptions or definitions, and that all conclusions are conditional upon the unverifiable assumptions.

I understand what you're saying. A large portion of today's evangelical apologetics is practiced by relying upon logical assumption as an antidote to relativism (or nihilism), because these things often scare evangelical Christians to death, and the notions of Foundationalism seem "safer" to them. I don't really agree with this approach, but that is what is prevalent these days.

Not sure what you're saying with the rest of this here...

In essence, I'm just saying that I see Christian faith, in general, as an existential journey of exploration, rather than as an enterprise by which to establish absolute propositions. Of course, propositions are needed in order to communicate and make assertions about our world (universe), but there's always something more to learn ... or some interesting fellow or lady from whom we might draw further considerations. In this way, I ride the "supernova" wave of faith outward, rather than getting sucked back into the "black hole" of nihilism. [Again, it's just a metaphor, so don't be tempted to make too much out of it. ].

Is there anything else I've said that still doesn't make sense?

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I understand what you're saying. A large portion of today's evangelical apologetics is practiced by relying upon logical assumption as an antidote to relativism (or nihilism), because these things often scare evangelical Christians to death, and the notions of Foundationalism seem "safer" to them. I don't really agree with this approach, but that is what is prevalent these days.

In essence, I'm just saying that I see Christian faith, in general, as an existential journey of exploration, rather than as an enterprise by which to establish absolute propositions. Of course, propositions are needed in order to communicate and make assertions about our world (universe), but there's always something more to learn ... or some interesting fellow or lady from whom we might draw further considerations. In this way, I ride the "supernova" wave of faith outward, rather than getting sucked back into the "black hole" of nihilism. [Again, it's just a metaphor, so don't be tempted to make too much out of it. ].

Is there anything else I've said that still doesn't make sense?

Peace
2PhiloVoid

Ok I get what you are saying here, except where does Jesus actually fit into all of that?

 

[Received]

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?

Each of these qualifications are constituents for particular individuals, and shouldn't be seen as universal formulas for what makes up even the most mature Christian. Jesus told the rich young rule and nobody else, nota bene, to sell all his possessions. He actually tells Zacchaeus (Luke 19:8-9) that he has salvation has come to his house because Z sold half of his possessions, not all of them. That's not a contradiction: the selling of possessions is a way of detaching oneself from the earthly things that limit one's interactions with God; therefore some people need the big punch of selling all, others half, and most (presumably the poorest) little if anything.

The criterion for being a good Christian is mostly reflected in character, which is where the fruits of the spirit come in: love, joy, peace, kindness, etc. These aren't things that you intentionally will, but rather are reflections of how faithful you are -- how well you're following God's particular will for your life, which could be vastly different than the life of another person, keeping the same principles of love, forgiveness, etc. the same between individuals.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok I get what you are saying here, except where does Jesus actually fit into all of that?

On an existential level, I don't think your question is applicable, even though I do think it is coherent, and I understand why you would ask it. But, this kind of question is like asking, "How can we best put a live, African Bull Elephant into a matchbox"? It would be tricky, to say the least--and maybe even, in a more rational moment, deemed as death defying.

It may sound strange, but for us to contemplate the actual act of 'fitting' Jesus INTO some epistemological framework, we'd have to know "where" that framework can take us on a cognitive and analytical level, and if it is sturdy enough to accommodate the weight of theological contemplation. To some people, all of this might sound doable. However, I'd say that most, if not all, epistemological frameworks suffer systemic limitations similar to those seen in the field of mathematics.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that there is a kind of perceptual relativism that pervades our sense of prudence when attempting to choose one framework over another; there is no consensus as to which epistemological framework should be used. Granted, Evangelical Christians tend to favor Foundationalism more often than not, but that is not a good reason to assume Foundationalism should be the working theory of knowledge over and above any other theory ... or to assume that any epistemology is wholly serviceable for the constructing of a comprehensive, and convincing, Christian theology.

Instead of all of the expectation we place on an epistemology to get us to God, we need to take a step back and realize that, according to Christian doctrine (and/or the Bible), God brings us to Himself by way of revelation, and He controls, so to speak, the "dimmer switch."

This is why I say that I'm riding the "expansive" wave of faith, NV. Hopefully, God will turn it up to "super-nova" for you in the near future so you can escape that black hole of Nihilism you're in and ride the "expansive" wave to spiritual freedom.

[Now, where did I put that extra, Red Pill? ... ]

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Each of these qualifications are constituents for particular individuals, and shouldn't be seen as universal formulas for what makes up even the most mature Christian. Jesus told the rich young rule and nobody else, nota bene, to sell all his possessions. He actually tells Zacchaeus (Luke 19:8-9) that he has salvation has come to his house because Z sold half of his possessions, not all of them. That's not a contradiction: the selling of possessions is a way of detaching oneself from the earthly things that limit one's interactions with God; therefore some people need the big punch of selling all, others half, and most (presumably the poorest) little if anything.

The criterion for being a good Christian is mostly reflected in character, which is where the fruits of the spirit come in: love, joy, peace, kindness, etc. These aren't things that you intentionally will, but rather are reflections of how faithful you are -- how well you're following God's particular will for your life, which could be vastly different than the life of another person, keeping the same principles of love, forgiveness, etc. the same between individuals.

If those things applied only to the rich young ruler or only to Zacchaeus, what is the point in recording it in the Bible?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

On an existential level, I don't think your question is applicable, even though I do think it is coherent, and I understand why you would ask it. But, this kind of question is like asking, "How can we best put a live, African Bull Elephant into a matchbox"? It would be tricky, to say the least--and maybe even, in a more rational moment, deemed as death defying.

It may sound strange, but for us to contemplate the actual act of 'fitting' Jesus INTO some epistemological framework, we'd have to know "where" that framework can take us on a cognitive and analytical level, and if it is sturdy enough to accommodate the weight of theological contemplation. To some people, all of this might sound doable. However, I'd say that most, if not all, epistemological frameworks suffer systemic limitations similar to those seen in the field of mathematics.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that there is a kind of perceptual relativism that pervades our sense of prudence when attempting to choose one framework over another; there is no consensus as to which epistemological framework should be used. Granted, Evangelical Christians tend to favor Foundationalism more often than not, but that is not a good reason to assume Foundationalism should be the working theory of knowledge over and above any other theory ... or to assume that any epistemology is wholly serviceable for the constructing of a comprehensive, and convincing, Christian theology.

Instead of all of the expectation we place on an epistemology to get us to God, we need to take a step back and realize that, according to Christian doctrine (and/or the Bible), God brings us to Himself by way of revelation, and He controls, so to speak, the "dimmer switch."

This is why I say that I'm riding the "expansive" wave of faith, NV. Hopefully, God will turn it up to "super-nova" for you in the near future so you can escape that black hole of Nihilism you're in and ride the "expansive" wave to spiritual freedom.

[Now, where did I put that extra, Red Pill? ... ]

Peace
2PhiloVoid

I think it is you who needs to take the red pill. You certainly cling to the system of control put forth by your God, whereas I do not believe that such a thing exists.

 

[ToBeLoved]

If those things applied only to the rich young ruler or only to Zacchaeus, what is the point in recording it in the Bible?

It is showing how money and goods can change people and become too important if we are not careful.

The things that last are the spiritual things not physical.

 

[Received]

If those things applied only to the rich young ruler or only to Zacchaeus, what is the point in recording it in the Bible?

The point is about loving money before God. That definitely applies to everyone. The particulars that determine what's needed to give up money -- that's what applies to certain people.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think it is you who needs to take the red pill. You certainly cling to the system of control put forth by your God, whereas I do not believe that such a thing exists.

LOL! In mentioning the 'red pill,' I was referring to myself, not to you. I should have been clearer.

The "system of control"? That's an interesting term to use.

 

[Tree of Life]

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?

This happens all the time. See about Roman Catholic Holy Orders. See about the Franciscans. See about the "New Monasticism".

Although I don't think that this is the only way to be a Christian extremist. Perhaps define "Christian extremism"?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It is showing how money and goods can change people and become too important if we are not careful.

The things that last are the spiritual things not physical.

The point is about loving money before God. That definitely applies to everyone. The particulars that determine what's needed to give up money -- that's what applies to certain people.

You live in luxury while people are starving. We know what Jesus said to the rich young ruler. What would he say to you?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This happens all the time. See about Roman Catholic Holy Orders. See about the Franciscans. See about the "New Monasticism".

Although I don't think that this is the only way to be a Christian extremist. Perhaps define "Christian extremism"?

Christian extremist: one who follows all of Christ's teachings without twisting them into something convenient that fits their lifestyle instead of selectively following some of them while going through pains to explain how certain things don't need to be followed.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Christian extremist: one who follows all of Christ's teachings without twisting them into something convenient that fits their lifestyle instead of selectively following some of them while going through pains to explain how certain things don't need to be followed.

What you don't get however is that Jesus told what was most important.

You are living what you think Jesus taught or saying we should. I think you are just off base to what Christianity is And what God wants.

 

[Tree of Life]

Christian extremist: one who follows all of Christ's teachings without twisting them into something convenient that fits their lifestyle instead of selectively following some of them while going through pains to explain how certain things don't need to be followed.

I'm interested to know which of Christ's teachings (or even expand it to all of Scripture as Christ believed in the authority of the OT) do you think are commonly neglected by Christians.