Any bible scholars out there?

Can a christian deny the old testament?

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#221  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 2:40 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
They are neither mysterious nor unnamed.


Well, they've probably buggered off by now, so the thread can get back on topic instead of claims and counterclaims based on perceptions of personalities.

That's been something I've been asking for since this derail started.


So, going back to page 1 - what do you make of the claim of therapod's that this one dogma about Original Sin is necessary to be a True Christian and that christians who do not adhere to that particular minutia are not christians?

While I agree it is a No True Christian fallacy, he does have a point with regards to Original Sin (or Curse) being a fundamental part of the Christianity's origin myth.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30949
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#222  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 2:46 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Since no-one has expressed being worked up in any sense, in this thread, this is yet another non-sequitur.


No, it is simply another unhealthy manifestation of projecting emotions onto others that Penny should stop, as indeed should anyone engaged in this behaviour.

Of course, I'm being generous here and entertaining the notion that in Penny's case, such projection is being done in all innocence. There are certainly individuals who will engage in this behaviour in a dishonest effort to undermine the arguments of others by making spurious claims about the emotions of their interlocutors. It is a classic way of denying people agency.


I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. But, consider that maybe I'm not projecting.

Either way, you're attributing things to your interlocutors they have not expressed or even explicitely denied.

PensivePenny wrote: Consider that on a forum, with nothing but text as a clue, no facial expressions, no hand gestures, etc, words can be misconstrued. I accept that. I also accept that maybe NO-one is getting worked up. I could very much be wrong... but the last several pages would suggest otherwise purely by the volume of posts about minutiae.

That's a non-sequitur.
One does not have to be worked up to discuss anything at length.


PensivePenny wrote:I started a thread in a theology forum. Naturally, any members are welcome to post where and what they like. My personal motivation to participate in this thread is for the reasons stated in the OP. The only explanation my brain could conceive as to why anyone would continually post in a thread, once it got off the rails, is that they are "worked up."

That's a failure of your imagination, not a rational basis to accuse others of being worked up.
Especially since doing so is personalised and thus contrary to the FUA.

PensivePenny wrote: That's a general term that can be used to describe a whole variety of emotions.

Never the less, it's not the only option.

PensivePenny wrote: If that's wrong, then okay. I apologize.

With all due respect, but that's a non-apology.
It's similar to "I am sorry if I hurt your feelings."
I accept that's probably not what you intended to express. I am just pointing it out so you can avoid it in the future.


PensivePenny wrote: But I have to ask how anyone here can be so certain that the other members AREN'T worked up?

That's irrelevant for several reasons:
1. You are making the accusation that they are. Therefore the burden of proof lies with you.
2. Making (unsollicited) remarks about another members emotional state is considered inflammatory, as it adresses the person, not the argument.

PensivePenny wrote: I am not certain they are, but some probably are. Seems rational to me based on what's been posted. :dunno:

This is nothing but an appeal to your own personal (in)credulity and ignorance.
Just because you interpet something in a certain way, doens't mean it's the only, nor most likely explanation.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30949
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#223  Postby Sendraks » Apr 25, 2017 2:48 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. But, consider that maybe I'm not projecting. Consider that on a forum, with nothing but text as a clue, no facial expressions, no hand gestures, etc, words can be misconstrued. I accept that. I also accept that maybe NO-one is getting worked up. I could very much be wrong... but the last several pages would suggest otherwise purely by the volume of posts about minutiae.

I don't need any of the clues of facial expressions or hand gestures to determine if you are projecting. If you assigning behaviours or motivations to others that are otherwise not manifest (as you have been doing), then you are projecting. It really is that simple.

For me to consider you not to be doing that, you'd have to not be doing that.

PensivePenny wrote:I started a thread in a theology forum. Naturally, any members are welcome to post where and what they like. My personal motivation to participate in this thread is for the reasons stated in the OP. The only explanation my brain could conceive as to why anyone would continually post in a thread, once it got off the rails, is that they are "worked up." That's a general term that can be used to describe a whole variety of emotions. If that's wrong, then okay. I apologize.


Yes, the key thing is that it is your brain which has come up with the explanation for other people's behaviour. You have then projected that behaviour onto other people.

I didn't say it was "wrong," I said it was unhealthy. Because projecting emotions onto other people means you're then responding to what you've projected, rather than what they've actually said.

PensivePenny wrote:But I have to ask how anyone here can be so certain that the other members AREN'T worked up? I am not certain they are, but some probably are. Seems rational to me based on what's been posted. :dunno:


You don't know. So why act as if you do? Why attribute emotional states to people that they do not hold? What purpose does that serve other than to unnecessarily muddy the waters of discussion.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#224  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 2:50 pm

Sendraks, you may not have the benefit of the "ETA" I added to the post you responded to. I think our posts crossed.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#225  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 3:00 pm

Sendraks wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. But, consider that maybe I'm not projecting. Consider that on a forum, with nothing but text as a clue, no facial expressions, no hand gestures, etc, words can be misconstrued. I accept that. I also accept that maybe NO-one is getting worked up. I could very much be wrong... but the last several pages would suggest otherwise purely by the volume of posts about minutiae.

I don't need any of the clues of facial expressions or hand gestures to determine if you are projecting. If you assigning behaviours or motivations to others that are otherwise not manifest (as you have been doing), then you are projecting. It really is that simple.

For me to consider you not to be doing that, you'd have to not be doing that.

PensivePenny wrote:I started a thread in a theology forum. Naturally, any members are welcome to post where and what they like. My personal motivation to participate in this thread is for the reasons stated in the OP. The only explanation my brain could conceive as to why anyone would continually post in a thread, once it got off the rails, is that they are "worked up." That's a general term that can be used to describe a whole variety of emotions. If that's wrong, then okay. I apologize.


Yes, the key thing is that it is your brain which has come up with the explanation for other people's behaviour. You have then projected that behaviour onto other people.

I didn't say it was "wrong," I said it was unhealthy. Because projecting emotions onto other people means you're then responding to what you've projected, rather than what they've actually said.

PensivePenny wrote:But I have to ask how anyone here can be so certain that the other members AREN'T worked up? I am not certain they are, but some probably are. Seems rational to me based on what's been posted. :dunno:


You don't know. So why act as if you do? Why attribute emotional states to people that they do not hold? What purpose does that serve other than to unnecessarily muddy the waters of discussion.


I think there is a nuance you're missing. I'm merely trying to assess what I am reading and understand it. And yes, I call upon MY own experiences because I don't have the benefit of YOURS. The aforementioned "assessment" is NOT a conclusion. It has a high probability of error. As people interact, more data is exchanged, "get to know one another", like science, the probability of an assessments accuracy generally increases. I would put forth that "projection" is the certitude of that projection. I have repeatedly said, meh, I could be wrong... no harm done, no conclusions are drawn. Even my understanding of "projection" could be wrong. Is it worth fighting about?
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#226  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 3:03 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Fallible wrote:Please tell me there isn't still someone here who believes Platko to be posting in good faith. It's only the sheer quantity of drivel he's put out which might prevent them from disabusing themselves of this notion by reading his own words on this forum. True, he's continuing to tell lies about what he's done and how other people responded to that in this very thread, but at this stage in his posting career it would take days if not weeks of dedicated reading back through the endless chains of chicanery and goalpost shifting to begin to unravel it all. Let me just say for Penny's sake that the claims he has recently made here are outright lies, and as with much of his piffle, relies solely on his own idiosyncratic redefinition of words which most people understand to mean very different things. That's just the tip of the trolling iceberg though. Pretty much everything he says is disingenuous, unwarrantedly condescending bollocks. If that's really what you're looking for, I suppose that's your prerogative. It just seems rather sad to me that someone will politelyentertain this guy's dishonest shit all day long while simultaneously rudely dismissing another member who in my experience always posts in good faith.


Whoa. I'm really not sure what your point is. It sounds like you find it "sad" that I was polite? To someone who was polite to me? Is there some problem with that? As for "dismissing another member" well in MY EXPERIENCE that member has been almost exclusively rude to me, in this thread and previous interactions. Without cause.

i missed this the first time around.
Please provide a link or quote of a post where I have been rude to you.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30949
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#227  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 3:05 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. But, consider that maybe I'm not projecting. Consider that on a forum, with nothing but text as a clue, no facial expressions, no hand gestures, etc, words can be misconstrued. I accept that. I also accept that maybe NO-one is getting worked up. I could very much be wrong... but the last several pages would suggest otherwise purely by the volume of posts about minutiae.

I don't need any of the clues of facial expressions or hand gestures to determine if you are projecting. If you assigning behaviours or motivations to others that are otherwise not manifest (as you have been doing), then you are projecting. It really is that simple.

For me to consider you not to be doing that, you'd have to not be doing that.

PensivePenny wrote:I started a thread in a theology forum. Naturally, any members are welcome to post where and what they like. My personal motivation to participate in this thread is for the reasons stated in the OP. The only explanation my brain could conceive as to why anyone would continually post in a thread, once it got off the rails, is that they are "worked up." That's a general term that can be used to describe a whole variety of emotions. If that's wrong, then okay. I apologize.


Yes, the key thing is that it is your brain which has come up with the explanation for other people's behaviour. You have then projected that behaviour onto other people.

I didn't say it was "wrong," I said it was unhealthy. Because projecting emotions onto other people means you're then responding to what you've projected, rather than what they've actually said.

PensivePenny wrote:But I have to ask how anyone here can be so certain that the other members AREN'T worked up? I am not certain they are, but some probably are. Seems rational to me based on what's been posted. :dunno:


You don't know. So why act as if you do? Why attribute emotional states to people that they do not hold? What purpose does that serve other than to unnecessarily muddy the waters of discussion.


I think there is a nuance you're missing. I'm merely trying to assess what I am reading and understand it. And yes, I call upon MY own experiences because I don't have the benefit of YOURS. The aforementioned "assessment" is NOT a conclusion. It has a high probability of error. As people interact, more data is exchanged, "get to know one another", like science, the probability of an assessments accuracy generally increases. I would put forth that "projection" is the certitude of that projection. I have repeatedly said, meh, I could be wrong... no harm done, no conclusions are drawn.

Another falsehood.

Among other direct accusations, you've made this one, which goes far beyond an impression:
PensivePenny wrote:
So, why are you abusing me, now? I just don't understand that. Aren't you a therapist or something? Is this how you would treat someone in your care? I imagine you would demonstrate patience, compassion and an ear. Not judgement and hostility.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30949
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#228  Postby Sendraks » Apr 25, 2017 3:12 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
I think there is a nuance you're missing. I'm merely trying to assess what I am reading and understand it. And yes, I call upon MY own experiences because I don't have the benefit of YOURS. The aforementioned "assessment" is NOT a conclusion. It has a high probability of error. As people interact, more data is exchanged, "get to know one another", like science, the probability of an assessments accuracy generally increases. I would put forth that "projection" is the certitude of that projection. I have repeatedly said, meh, I could be wrong... no harm done, no conclusions are drawn. Even my understanding of "projection" could be wrong. Is it worth fighting about?


The point I've made about this being an unhealthy behaviour still stands, because drawing on your own experiences simply leads to you responding to caricatures of your own experiences rather than what people are actually saying or who those people actually are.

For the purposes of understanding what people are saying, you do not need to project behaviours or emotions onto people to do that. The only purpose of doing that is to reinforce your own conclusions about what motivates people to say what they have said, which is not the same as understanding what they have said.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#229  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 3:12 pm

Thomas, you haven't respected my wishes to not engage with you, though I was explicit in that request. That should be sufficient cause to say you were rude. I consider that rude. You may consider me not reading the entirety of your posts, rude. "Rude" like so many of the things that are written on this site, is highly subjective and open to interpretation. Another man's garbage and all that. Nothing personal, when a stove is warm, I remove my hand from it. Doesn't mean I chuck it out.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#230  Postby theropod » Apr 25, 2017 3:14 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
They are neither mysterious nor unnamed.


Well, they've probably buggered off by now, so the thread can get back on topic instead of claims and counterclaims based on perceptions of personalities.

That's been something I've been asking for since this derail started.


So, going back to page 1 - what do you make of the claim of therapod's that this one dogma about Original Sin is necessary to be a True Christian and that christians who do not adhere to that particular minutia are not christians?


Why not ask me directly? Why snip out the arguments I made in support of my claim? Again, is a radical departure from the central tenets of Christianity not enough to disqualify such as actually being Christian? As I stated in an unquoted post words have meanings, and if one dismisses the central tenets and dogma of Christianity the claim that such people as Jim Jones are also Christian is wrong. If anything one wants to believe is allowed to be called Christianity then the word has no meaning and the entire point is moot. It would be the same as if I claimed to be a Republican that supported a woman's right to control her reproductive choices, universal single payer healthcare, decreased military spending, greater environmental regluation and splitting up Wall Street banks. No matter if I claimed to be a Republican or not I could not reasonably enconsidered one. It is exactly the same as when North Korea claims to be a free and open society.

It spelled T H E R O P O D.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 66
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#231  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 3:17 pm

PensivePenny wrote:Thomas, you haven't respected my wishes to not engage with you,

I might have, had you not spent spend several pages of this thread, making attacks on my character.
Either way, I am under no obligation to ignore your posts.

PensivePenny wrote: though I was explicit in that request.

I've explicitely requested you, many times, to cease your personal attacks and return to a rational and honest discussion.
Your response: to post more personalised invective and claim that it's all on me.

PensivePenny wrote: That should be sufficient cause to say you were rude.

That's nonsense.
This is a public forum, not your home or private blog.
You're free to ignore me.
But me pointing out that you're misrepresenting me and not answering my question is not rude.

PensivePenny wrote: I consider that rude.

Then you have a real idiosyncratic definition of rude.
Not mention a hypocritical one, given that you never respected my request to stop with the personal remarks.

PensivePenny wrote: You may consider me not reading the entirety of your posts, rude.

See, here you are projecting again. I never said or intimated anything like that.

PensivePenny wrote: "Rude" like so many of the things that are written on this site, is highly subjective and open to interpretation.

It really isn't.

PensivePenny wrote: Another man's garbage and all that. Nothing personal, when a stove is warm, I remove my hand from it. Doesn't mean I chuck it out.

Except that you don't unilaterally get to declare what is and isn't rude and pretend it's all my fault.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30949
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#232  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 3:20 pm

theropod wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

Well, they've probably buggered off by now, so the thread can get back on topic instead of claims and counterclaims based on perceptions of personalities.

That's been something I've been asking for since this derail started.


So, going back to page 1 - what do you make of the claim of therapod's that this one dogma about Original Sin is necessary to be a True Christian and that christians who do not adhere to that particular minutia are not christians?


Why not ask me directly? Why snip out the arguments I made in support of my claim? Again, is a radical departure from the central tenets of Christianity not enough to disqualify such as actually being Christian? As I stated in an unquoted post words have meanings, and if one dismisses the central tenets and dogma of Christianity the claim that such people as Jim Jones are also Christian is wrong. If anything one wants to believe is allowed to be called Christianity then the word has no meaning and the entire point is moot. It would be the same as if I claimed to be a Republican that supported a woman's right to control her reproductive choices, universal single payer healthcare, decreased military spending, greater environmental regluation and splitting up Wall Street banks. No matter if I claimed to be a Republican or not I could not reasonably enconsidered one. It is exactly the same as when North Korea claims to be a free and open society.

It spelled T H E R O P O D.

RS

Well, the central tenets of Christianity have changed several times over the centuries, from marriage, female priests, to the way one get's into heaven.
It's also a bit of stretch to compare Republicans to Christians. There aren't 6000 different Republican denominations after all.
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Apr 25, 2017 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30949
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#233  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 3:22 pm

Sendraks wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
I think there is a nuance you're missing. I'm merely trying to assess what I am reading and understand it. And yes, I call upon MY own experiences because I don't have the benefit of YOURS. The aforementioned "assessment" is NOT a conclusion. It has a high probability of error. As people interact, more data is exchanged, "get to know one another", like science, the probability of an assessments accuracy generally increases. I would put forth that "projection" is the certitude of that projection. I have repeatedly said, meh, I could be wrong... no harm done, no conclusions are drawn. Even my understanding of "projection" could be wrong. Is it worth fighting about?


The point I've made about this being an unhealthy behaviour still stands, because drawing on your own experiences simply leads to you responding to caricatures of your own experiences rather than what people are actually saying or who those people actually are.

Maybe YOUR experience leads YOU to creating caricatures of others IF you were to "project." There isn't a scientist in the world who hasn't first imagined something based on their OWN experience/perceptions/observations. The thing is, they just refrain from calling THAT science (certitude). The real work begins when they devise ways of removing their own experience from equation, collect data , then and ONLY then, once the data is there to support a claim, do they call it science. And still, it is subject to revision. That's all I've done. I have no conclusive assessment of anyone here. I probably never will. I give it the weight it deserves (which isn't much) and meh, whatever.

For the purposes of understanding what people are saying, you do not need to project behaviours or emotions onto people to do that. The only purpose of doing that is to reinforce your own conclusions about what motivates people to say what they have said, which is not the same as understanding what they have said.


Okay... I understand that is your perception and opinion. It isn't likely we'll agree on this point. Are you okay with that?
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#234  Postby proudfootz » Apr 25, 2017 3:27 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

Well, they've probably buggered off by now, so the thread can get back on topic instead of claims and counterclaims based on perceptions of personalities.

That's been something I've been asking for since this derail started.


So, going back to page 1 - what do you make of the claim of therapod's that this one dogma about Original Sin is necessary to be a True Christian and that christians who do not adhere to that particular minutia are not christians?

While I agree it is a No True Christian fallacy, he does have a point with regards to Original Sin (or Curse) being a fundamental part of the Christianity's origin myth.


I quite agree the No True Christian fallacy is being employed there, to what end I can't say.

What do you think the point is?

I personally view myths about christian origins to be dubious. That christian cults can exist today without the notion of Original Sin would seem to me an indication that the doctrine was not a necessary condition at an earlier time.

Supposing that Jesus and his first followers were Jewish, and as I pointed out in an earlier post Original Sin requiring a Savior doesn't seem to be a part of that religion, this notion would seem to have evolved at a later date.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10968

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#235  Postby Sendraks » Apr 25, 2017 3:29 pm

PensivePenny wrote:Thomas, you haven't respected my wishes to not engage with you, though I was explicit in that request.


It is rude to tell people on a forum not to engage with you.

If you write something on these forums than anyone and everyone is free to engage with what you write. You do not get to carve out your own little space of who gets to comment or not. You are not the only person viewing the discussion and responses are not solely for your own eyes.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#236  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 3:30 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
I think there is a nuance you're missing. I'm merely trying to assess what I am reading and understand it. And yes, I call upon MY own experiences because I don't have the benefit of YOURS. The aforementioned "assessment" is NOT a conclusion. It has a high probability of error. As people interact, more data is exchanged, "get to know one another", like science, the probability of an assessments accuracy generally increases. I would put forth that "projection" is the certitude of that projection. I have repeatedly said, meh, I could be wrong... no harm done, no conclusions are drawn. Even my understanding of "projection" could be wrong. Is it worth fighting about?


The point I've made about this being an unhealthy behaviour still stands, because drawing on your own experiences simply leads to you responding to caricatures of your own experiences rather than what people are actually saying or who those people actually are.

Maybe YOUR experience leads YOU to creating caricatures of others IF you were to "project."

What?

PensivePenny wrote: There isn't a scientist in the world who hasn't first imagined something based on their OWN experience/perceptions/observations.

Except they don't operate on the basis of projecting their conclusion on their research.

PensivePenny wrote: The thing is, they just refrain from calling THAT science (certitude).

Because it isn't science. (Nor is science a synonym of certitude) Because it isn't rational to do so.

PensivePenny wrote: The real work begins when they devise ways of removing their own experience from equation, collect data , then and ONLY then, once the data is there to support a claim, do they call it science.

And the way you do this with research into people's behaviour is to ask questions. Not to assume it and their motivations and then proceed based on those assumptions.

PensivePenny wrote: And still, it is subject to revision. That's all I've done.

False, you've repeatedly made direct accusations about your interlocutors behaviour and/or motivations.
Even after they've corrected your misinterpetations.

PensivePenny wrote: I have no conclusive assessment of anyone here.

Your posts in this thread demonstrate otherwise when it comes to people's behaviour, positions and motivations.


PensivePenny wrote: I probably never will.

You already have, repeatedly.

PensivePenny wrote: I give it the weight it deserves (which isn't much) and meh, whatever.

Why not try the rational approach and stick to what people actually post and if necessary, ask for clarification.
Rather than making stuff up and then tilting at straw-men.

PensivePenny wrote:

For the purposes of understanding what people are saying, you do not need to project behaviours or emotions onto people to do that. The only purpose of doing that is to reinforce your own conclusions about what motivates people to say what they have said, which is not the same as understanding what they have said.


Okay... I understand that is your perception and opinion.

It's neither Penny. It's a demonstrable fact.
I get that you might want to dismiss it as an opinion, but it really isn't.

PensivePenny wrote:It isn't likely we'll agree on this point. Are you okay with that?

I can't speak for Sendranks, but from what I know about him, he won't.
This isn't a question of agreeing to disagree.
In this case, it's you not listening to your interlocutors to stick to your misconceived notion.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30949
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#237  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 3:34 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
That's been something I've been asking for since this derail started.


So, going back to page 1 - what do you make of the claim of therapod's that this one dogma about Original Sin is necessary to be a True Christian and that christians who do not adhere to that particular minutia are not christians?

While I agree it is a No True Christian fallacy, he does have a point with regards to Original Sin (or Curse) being a fundamental part of the Christianity's origin myth.


I quite agree the No True Christian fallacy is being employed there, to what end I can't say.

What do you think the point is?

Like I said, that it's incongruous to deny something that is a fundamental part of the origin of your religion.
It would be the equivalent of Jews who believe Moses didn't lead the Jews out of Israel because they were enslaved but because they wanted to live in Israel.

proudfootz wrote:I personally view myths about christian origins to be dubious. That christian cults can exist today without the notion of Original Sin would seem to me an indication that the doctrine was not a necessary condition at an earlier time.

That does not follow.
At best it indicates that later Christians found little or no objection to changing the original dogma.


proudfootz wrote:
Supposing that Jesus and his first followers were Jewish, and as I pointed out in an earlier post Original Sin requiring a Savior doesn't seem to be a part of that religion, this notion would seem to have evolved at a later date.

Jesus and his followers were Jewish in almost the same sense that they are Muslims according to Islam.
They were ethnically Jews and thought of themselves the natural continuation of the Jewish faith.
They interpeted the Jewish text as predicting the arrival of Jesus and that Jesus would absolve/save them from the original sin/curse inflicted upon A&E.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30949
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#238  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 3:37 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Except that you don't unilaterally get to declare what is and isn't rude and pretend it's all my fault.


Holy shit! We finally agree on something!

Here is what happened:

1) I had a suspicion that you and I were going to descend into an argument.

2) I didn't want to fight.

3) You badgered me to engage.

4) I implied I just didn't want to, chalking it up to miscommunication or personality conflict.

3) You badgered me more to engage.

4) I implied more strongly I just didn't want to.

3) You badgered me more to engage.

4) I finally tell you explicitly I had no intention to engage you.

5) followed by yet more badgering.

6) When a child keeps asking "why, why, why..." you either tell them why or you perhaps punish them or whatever.

7) So, I told you why. I felt you were rude.

8) Meh, you do whatever you want with that bit of information. It isn't for me to say.

BUT!!! I have explicitly stated that I placed NO BLAME!! Listener, talker... two people... And you and I "not gelling" as I stated way early in the thread is precisely the definition of NOT placing blame.

But, you will see this interaction your way. I will see it mine. I seriously doubt either of us will tweak our perspective. Am I the only one that sees the futility here?
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#239  Postby proudfootz » Apr 25, 2017 3:37 pm

theropod wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

Well, they've probably buggered off by now, so the thread can get back on topic instead of claims and counterclaims based on perceptions of personalities.

That's been something I've been asking for since this derail started.


So, going back to page 1 - what do you make of the claim of therapod's that this one dogma about Original Sin is necessary to be a True Christian and that christians who do not adhere to that particular minutia are not christians?


Why not ask me directly? Why snip out the arguments I made in support of my claim? Again, is a radical departure from the central tenets of Christianity not enough to disqualify such as actually being Christian? As I stated in an unquoted post words have meanings, and if one dismisses the central tenets and dogma of Christianity the claim that such people as Jim Jones are also Christian is wrong. If anything one wants to believe is allowed to be called Christianity then the word has no meaning and the entire point is moot. It would be the same as if I claimed to be a Republican that supported a woman's right to control her reproductive choices, universal single payer healthcare, decreased military spending, greater environmental regluation and splitting up Wall Street banks. No matter if I claimed to be a Republican or not I could not reasonably enconsidered one. It is exactly the same as when North Korea claims to be a free and open society.

It spelled T H E R O P O D.

RS


I apologize for misspelling your name.

I pointed out where your post could be found, so all and sundry could read it in context for themselves if they had any interest in doing so.

I snipped the relevant quote for the benefit of another poster who'd missed it.

The problem I see with the No True Christian argument, with respect to a particular dogma which christians have been fighting over since Augustine versus the Pelagians is that is smacks of heresy hunting.

If you believe christianity means nothing without the doctrine of Original Sin that is your prerogative. But there do seem to be christians who disagree with you.

And a Republican who supported some of the sensible policies you've outlined above would be a Republican I could vote for.

:cheers:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10968

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#240  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 3:38 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:Thomas, you haven't respected my wishes to not engage with you,

I might have, had you not spent spend several pages of this thread, making attacks on my character.
Either way, I am under no obligation to ignore your posts.

PensivePenny wrote: though I was explicit in that request.

I've explicitely requested you, many times, to cease your personal attacks and return to a rational and honest discussion.
Your response: to post more personalised invective and claim that it's all on me.

PensivePenny wrote: That should be sufficient cause to say you were rude.

That's nonsense.
This is a public forum, not your home or private blog.
You're free to ignore me.
But me pointing out that you're misrepresenting me and not answering my question is not rude.

PensivePenny wrote: I consider that rude.

Then you have a real idiosyncratic definition of rude.
Not mention a hypocritical one, given that you never respected my request to stop with the personal remarks.

PensivePenny wrote: You may consider me not reading the entirety of your posts, rude.

See, here you are projecting again. I never said or intimated anything like that.

PensivePenny wrote: "Rude" like so many of the things that are written on this site, is highly subjective and open to interpretation.

It really isn't.

PensivePenny wrote: Another man's garbage and all that. Nothing personal, when a stove is warm, I remove my hand from it. Doesn't mean I chuck it out.

Except that you don't unilaterally get to declare what is and isn't rude and pretend it's all my fault.


If I have in any way "attacked your character" then report me to the mods and have me banned. The FUA is your friend.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest