Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Bill O'Reilly: No True Christian would kill Norwegians.
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
It's not crucial to my argument, but it will be one less thing to distract from proper discussion.
I think the posts that take up a page are distracting from things more than anything.
My position is that you either misunderstood or (more likely to my mind) misrepresented for the sake of caricature, my original argument, and then ignored further clarification in order to continue to argue against this caricature.
Your position (if I might be so bold) is that I original stated something ridiculous and bigoted and then attempted to back track from it when this was pointed out to me by you and others.
I think we can leave it to the audience to decide which position they accept in this regard, as clearly we are not making any head way convincing each other of our position.0 -
philologos wrote: »Wicknight: Not that this is relevant as to whether or not Brevik is a 'Christian fundamentalist' (which he doesn't seem to be given what he's written in his 1500 page megadoc), but you are assuming that Christians must of necessity be perfect as a result of believing in Christ.
No, I'm assuming that Christians must try to be as perfect as Jesus instructed them to be as a result of believing in Christ.
Not in my experience. I think you may aspire to lead good lives. But then Christians are asked by Jesus to do more than that.philologos wrote: »In reality most Christians, myself included know that we screw up from time to time, but we aspire to live and speak for Jesus in every aspect of our lives.
How does one fail to aspire to live and speak for Jesus?philologos wrote: »I've failed to do it from time to time.
As Robin pointed out these excuses make the claims almost meaningless.
It is like Bart from the Simpsons "I can't promise I'll try. But I promise to try to try"philologos wrote: »As for not seeing people living like Christians on a regular basis. I honestly don't know. I haven't seen quite the same commitment as Christians give in numerous aspects to their societies. A survey undertaken in evangelical churches in Britain (PDF - 2.1MB) shows (Guardian coverage here) that there is a correlation between Bible reading, and giving and volunteering along with other traditional forms of Christian expression such as prayer and evangelism.
That is great, but that alone does not make one a Christian, at least not to my mind.
Like raah I suspect the issue is that you, and most Christians in my experience, don't really appreciate what Jesus actually asked you to do. Finding out if this is true or not is one of the reasons I started the thread on loving your enemies in the other forum.0 -
I think the posts that take up a page are distracting from things more than anything.
Perhaps you are right, taking both of those position representations into account, we can both be happy, from those positions, continuing with this statement (as I said in my last few posts) :Wicknight
Certain. I think that I've never met a true Christian, since every Christian I've met has displayed behavior where they have abandoned trying to adhere to Jesus' standards.
I still disagree with this.
Just for the sake of clarity, it's important to note that this "Jesus' standards" is quite apart from "Christian Principles". On this you can push the argument that a christian who has all those qualities like meekness and forgiveness is still not a christian, because they have disagreed with you on a forum.
So, as before, on this clear and precise form of your meaning, how do you know they have "abandoned trying to adhere" and could you give examples of this? (it would be helpful if you did not cite what you see as deliberate misinterpretation, since this is not s omething we agree over).
I've already given reasons why you can't infer this, and reasons why you could infer that someone who calls them selves a christian and does well with the easier values, but struggles with those closer and closer to the attainment of christlike perfection is still "trying to be christian".
Youre inference is along the lines of
-I've seen christians who have not attained a state of christlike perfection.
???
-Therefore they have completely abandoned even trying to live up to this standard of Jesus.
Your examples are along the lines of things which are not clear cut, but rather subjective (this is where your subjective bias comes into account, and why words like predjudice and bigot become more appropriate). For example a person calls you a bigot for saying things they see as bigotted. There is nothing unchristian about informing someone that they are engaged in immorality and trying to improve them by doing so. It perhaps does not make you feel good, but this does not make it so that it is an instance of their not trying to love you.
Since we have separated from the topic of scriptural interpretation, and you have changed your statements, there is no need for you to refuse to defend it here.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
No, I'm assuming that Christians must try to be as perfect as Jesus instructed them to be as a result of believing in Christ.
Agreed in so far as Christians must strive to know Jesus more and as a result live by His example. As for your belief that nobody actually does lead Christ-inspired lives I would question as to how far you're looking. Most of the examples I've given you are examples of Christians living for Christ in their communities. In the case of what I was discussing with Malty T it has a real impact on crime rates.Not in my experience. I think you may aspire to lead good lives. But then Christians are asked by Jesus to do more than that.
It depends on what a "good" life is. Christians don't believe that anyone is good in and of themselves. A good life for a Christian is a life led with a heart that follows after His.How does one fail to aspire to live and speak for Jesus?
FYP to give you an understanding of what I meant. Apologies for the lack of clarity.As Robin pointed out these excuses make the claims almost meaningless.
It is like Bart from the Simpsons "I can't promise I'll try. But I promise to try to try"
Nonsense, many Christians actually do show in very tangible ways the love of Christ in their communities.That is great, but that alone does not make one a Christian, at least not to my mind.
So living in a Christlike manner doesn't demonstrate to you that people live in a Christlike manner?
One is a Christian by a living faith in Christ. That's how one is saved and how one becomes a Christian. As for what follows on from that, that is the fruit of God's working in an individuals life.Like raah I suspect the issue is that you, and most Christians in my experience, don't really appreciate what Jesus actually asked you to do. Finding out if this is true or not is one of the reasons I started the thread on loving your enemies in the other forum.
I'm afraid I can't comment on what Christians you may or may not know in experience but going from some to all is woefully bad logic isn't it?
Malty T: All of the links show that it has been a valuable scheme in communities.0 -
-
-
-
philologos wrote: »Saving the chopping quotes and so on. You're fundamentally misunderstanding what Christianity means. It doesn't mean that all Christians are going to be perfect, it means that we are striving to be more and more like Him.
I don't know why people keep saying that to me. I never claimed that Christians have to be perfect to be Christians.
But you have to try, honestly, to be perfect to be Christians. You have to honestly try to follow what Jesus commands of you. And you don't.
So therephilologos wrote: »I think that you're essentially claiming that many people aren't Christian enough for you despite the fact that they are doing what Christ asked to. Loving the Lord their God with all their heart, soul and might, and loving their neighbour as themselves.
Jesus told you to do more than that. And you don't. So, er, there .. again
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Christian nor am I pretending to live up to this either.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
So for the purposes of this argument, all that is important is that there is no demonstration of my exhibiting behaviours from which you could infer I was not trying to love you.
You are not really in the best position to judge that though, are you? Particularly if you aren't trying to love me.A proper argument in support of it Wicknight. If you think that I am unable to comprehend reason, then you could support that.
That is some what paradoxical, is it not? I should support the argument that you aren't following my argument
I believe I have already supported my position. You disagree. Thus your definition of "proper argument" and mine are different to the point where I'm unsure how to satisfy your questions.So far you have not given a proper argument in support of your statements
Perhaps. But given that I'm not sure what would satisfy you in this regard I can't see a way to continue.This last statement was actually another instance of terrible bigotry tbh, as well as your behaviour in this thread.
If you say so. I've already explained how I believe you are using the term bigotry incorrectly.You are trying to exclude people from debate by who they are.
I'm not excluding you from anything. I'm merely pointing out the futility of attempting to further repeat the same arguments to you when you found them unsatisfactory the first time around.So we've already cleared out the distraction of the posts interpreting your posts, which was one escape mechanism, now if you can defend your point, then do so.
I believe I already have. Again you found this defence unsatisfactory.
So, once again, we seem to find ourselves at an impasse.Unless of course you are demonstrating further instances of bigotry in thinking that I hate you too much to listen to reason.
I don't think you hate me at all, and I've explained many times that this is an inaccurate conclusion of my argument (whether or not you believe I expressed that argument using the correct terminology originally).
I do think you are far more interested in being seen to win this argument and demonstrating to others that I'm a bigot that loving me and honestly attempting to understand what I'm saying or accurately representing it in your posts.
I've explained why I believe this, though again I'm perfectly content that you do not accept these explanations. My goal was never to convince Christians that they do this, as I would see that as a task difficult beyond my patience. The comment was for my fellow atheists to digest.So far I have demonstrating no such thing, and I can say, objectively, that you were wrong about all that strawman nonsense, and you shoudl really apologise for it.
Ok. If you think you have demonstrated this what exactly are you asking me to do? Defend what you already believe you have demonstrated is indefeasible?
That would seem some what pointless, would it not?You still don't understand that there is a difference between saying "oh sorry, I meant [different statement]" and "that's not what the words I used mean". So far, what you have done is "that's not what the words I used mean > changes to a statement with different words and meaning".
I'm not really following this. I have never changed to a different statement, my original position is still my position. My objections where to you inaccurate paraphrasing of my position (I notice you are still throwing the word "hate" around).0 -
-
Perhaps not the best position, but I am in a comparably suitable position to anyone else who can see what I've posted in the thread. I could speak about the things I've posted as though someone else had posted them though, so I am actually in exactly the same position as everyone else.You are not really in the best position to judge that though, are you? Particularly if you aren't trying to love me.
It is also helpful to note that if I do see my posts form the third person, their meaning is still the meaning I meant it to be. Your posts however would not. If you were to look at your posts from the third person, the words would mean something other than what you are now presenting as your position.
Again, if you want to go down this road of making psychological estimations of why people are doing this or that, I would say that you are now attempting to exploit the groupthink of your fellows here by saying things along the lines of "ye can see the truth, can't ye. They can't".
Yes, it's somewhat paradoxical, but not in anyway contradictory. You are to use reasoning external to the argumetn (jsut as we were earlier interpreting whta you said from outside of what you said) to show why my interpretation of the argument is incorrect. It becomes about reading comprehension, rather than the arguments themselves.That is some what paradoxical, is it not? I should support the argument that you aren't following my argument
I believe I have already supported my position. You disagree. Thus your definition of "proper argument" and mine are different to the point where I'm unsure how to satisfy your questions.
Again, that you don't understand this distinction is very important.
If you believe I am capable of reason. And if you believe, and as we have agreed, that our previous page long posts on reading comprehension obscured matters, then you ocan restate your arguments now. And we can treat them one at a time and see whether or not they are reasonable.]
Perhaps. But given that I'm not sure what would satisfy you in this regard I can't see a way to continue.
Well do you understand how if someone provides a counter argument to one of your arguments, and you then simply restate it, that it is you who is driving the thing into circles?If you say so. I've already explained how I believe you are using the term bigotry incorrectly.
I'm not excluding you from anything. I'm merely pointing out the futility of attempting to further repeat the same arguments to you when you found them unsatisfactory the first time around.
This sort of thing would be much more transparent if we did treat the arguments one at a time. We can cease quoting each other here, take your statement (as given in my posts above), analyse it, and give arguments as to it's accuracy/inaccuracy, and whether or not it's bigotted.
In this case, it is not an impasse, but rather you have managed to hide the wrongness of your statement in a muddle of sophistry. Whether or not it was deliberate is irrelevent to our solution of it. I believe that you and I are reasonable enough to come to a conclusion here, or at least show that it is illogical/unreasonable for one of us to have the opinion we do.I believe I already have. Again you found this defence unsatisfactory.
So, once again, we seem to find ourselves at an impasse.
By treating arguments one by one, a person will have to accept the wrongess of a given proposition, and not just stop quoting the arguments relating to that proposition, and continue arguing about the other propositions.
Well it's rather strange that you would use my "not loving you" as something from which to infer that I cannot properly make judgements as to whether or not I am trying to love you. (first paragraph of your post here). What is it that is obscuring my rationally responding to your points? It doesn't make sense to say that it's my "not loving you".I don't think you hate me at all, and I've explained many times that this is an inaccurate conclusion of my argument (whether or not you believe I expressed that argument using the correct terminology originally).
I do think you are far more interested in being seen to win this argument and demonstrating to others that I'm a bigot that loving me and honestly attempting to understand what I'm saying or accurately representing it in your posts.
I've explained why I believe this, though again I'm perfectly content that you do not accept these explanations. My goal was never to convince Christians that they do this, as I would see that as a task difficult beyond my patience. The comment was for my fellow atheists to digest.
In that quoted passage I did not mean to say that you were saying I hated you, but merely questioning you as to why you think I am not able to reason with you. As above, just saying that I "don't try to love you" is justification for this doesn't make sense.
I will refrain from using the term from now on. But it's important to notice that I was not attributing this as a quote of yours. I was putting it forward as a possible reason taht you would think I cannot be rational. So you have misinterpreted what I said, and immediately jump to my "strawmanning" you. This is never helpful to the discussion. But since it seems you can't help it, I won't use the term hate again, and try to be very clear when I am or am not attributing things to you.
As I very clearly pointed out, I am asking you to move on from this strawman nonsense, and continue with just the discussion of your claim about whether or not most christians "abandon trying ... etc." . Which I had quoted in the above post.Ok. If you think you have demonstrated this what exactly are you asking me to do? Defend what you already believe you have demonstrated is indefeasible?
That would seem some what pointless, would it not?
I used the word, but did not attribute it to you in a quotation. Regarding your change of position:I'm not really following this. I have never changed to a different statement, my original position is still my position. My objections where to you inaccurate paraphrasing of my position (I notice you are still throwing the word "hate" around).
The first statement:Wicknight
Every Christian I've interacted with for more than a brief encounter has shown active pursuit of behavior contrary to Jesus' teaching.
Revised statement:Wicknight
Certain. I think that I've never met a true Christian, since every Christian I've met has displayed behavior where they have abandoned trying to adhere to Jesus' standards.
These are two different statements. All along I've allowed you to clarify and revise , you say "I'm not interested in clarification" I am, but as I've pointed out a million times, there's a difference between: "sorry I meant ..." and "those words mean these different things, and they cannot mean what you have interpreted them to mean". The latter claim is the one you would need to maintain for me to be strawmanning you. That there is only one way to interpret the words, and that I am deliberately putting forward a false interpretation, given the context of the words.
Now, as I've been saying for the last 6 posts, I gave ample arguments, absed around the first quote there, and its context to support my inference from 'opposite to trying to love' to 'trying to hate'. We don't have to go over this again. We can continue from the bottom statement.
I am saying though , I think it was dishonest and wrong of you to say that I was strawmanning you. Even if my only intention was to win points for some reason, the best strategy to do this would not be to misinterpret your points. It would be to take them as what they are and argue against them. This would also be more suitable if my intention was to change your opinion on the matter. Furthermore, since, as far as I'm concerned, I have not displayed any inability to actually argue against your points, or in support of my own, there is less reason to think that I would want to use tricks rather than actual arguments.
So, as I've said, if you want to get away from that strawman nonsense, and actually force ourselves to come to a conclusion, we can continue from just that quote. And make our points one at a time. This way we will both be prevented from performing any sophistical tricks which can be hidden in large posts (not that either of us would have any interest in doing that, but if we did, we would be prevented from doing so by the fact that all such tricks would be immediately exposed, since they would be there naked in the screen, next to the arugments they are supposed to be against.)
We can say we've reached an impasse if we actually do reach some fundamental assumption on which we disagree but provide no further arguments for or against. Since we are arguing about inferences from some experience. We are not anywhere near such an impasse.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Now a further clarification is that obviously you don't mean that every christian you have met has abandoned every one of Jesus's standards. For example, you've explicitly mentioned that you do not think that loving your neighbour is one of jesus' standards, but it's quite clear from the passage in matthew, already well quoted in this thread, that jesus also held people to the standards of the old testament.
To clarify, loving your neighbour is a standard from the Old Testament. Jesus clearly requires that his followers adhere to the standards of the Old Testament that still apply in a post resurrection world.
I consider Jesus' standards as the ones he himself adds to the Old Testament basis.
Consider this the difference between a new law a government introduces and the idea that the government obviously expects everyone to still adhere to all the old laws. So if for example a government raises the drinking age to 21 one could say this is the standard of this government, while still recognizing that they expect people to adhere to all previous laws related to drinking.
Equally someone who, for what ever reason, decides they are not going to follow the 21 drinking limit, but were happy with the other laws and will adhere to them, could not be considered to be following the government's standards in this regard, even though they are continuing to follow all the previous laws that the government still requires one to follow.
This should clear up what I mean by Jesus' standards.It's also very clear that he says "there is none good but one", so here he is stating the impossiblity of acheiving the standard of christian perfection.
He does though say he wishes you
Matthew 5
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.Furthermore, there is the obvious conditional "if thou wilt be perfect...", and there is also a very clear scale, as far as jesus's concerned anyway. Do all these things, and then if you want to be perfect do this. Nowhere in this text is it suggested that by not striving for this absolute perfection you are not following him.
Jesus tells you to be perfect (or strive to be, if you prefer). Not following this instruction is not following Jesus.Well surely the expected behaviour of someone striving towards christian perfection is not just automatic christian perfection.
What you are doing is seeing that people are not perfectly following, and then infering that they are not trying. On top of this you still need to support the above claims you made.
No, I'm seeing that they are not trying, and then knowing they aren't trying.
There is a difference between someone trying to push a rock up a hill and someone leaving the rock to go do something else.
They may at some point come back and start pushing the rock again, but given the instruction is basically keep pushing the rock, this does little to demonstrate that they were trying while not pushing the rock.
When a person ceases to try to do something it is generally obvious to all those observing them.Well this is rather irrelevent, given that they would not then be "deliberately abandoning the standard of Jesus". This paragraph is not consistent with your original satement we have quoted up at the top there.
It is consistent, though I can in this instance understand your confusion.
I believe it is possible for someone to deliberately delude themselves about aspects of their religion that they find troublesome.So you must be careful in phrasing what you mean. This second part has contradicted the first part. Beacuse if they misinterpreted the scripture, and thought that jesus did not want them to love their enemies, then that would be an instance of their failing to live up to his standard, by failing to see what the standard is. If they deliberately abandoned anything it would then be their incorrect version of what his standard is.
You miss-understand the analogy. The couple are not misinterpreting scripture. They are choosing an interpretation that is easier on them rather than facing up to the reality of the situation. Deliberately deluding themselves so to speak.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
So by Jesus' standards you mean the ones which you perceive to be "added" to those in the old testament, like loving your enemy. Of course this is nothing something which we can all just take your word for. It is a well known quote of Jesus, and is contained there in Matthew 5To clarify, loving your neighbour is a standard from the Old Testament. Jesus clearly requires that his followers adhere to the standards of the Old Testament that still apply in a post resurrection world.
...
I consider Jesus' standards as the ones he himself adds to the Old Testament basis.
...
This should clear up what I mean by Jesus' standards.Matthew 5
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
But you will probably agree with this, you have not been saying that he has been contradicting the laws (there's no need to say that here, you could if you like, but it would distract from our main points), but supplementing them, with new things. However, if we take your favourite examples of 'turn the other cheek' and 'love your enemy' we can find:Lamentations 3:30
Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him.
Also in the new testament, in Romans 12:19 to 12:21 we have Paul basing his whole "forgiving your enemies" argument on the old testament itself:Romans
12:19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.12:20Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.12:21Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
So his argument is, avenge not yourselves (against your enemies), because it says this in the old testament. The old testament is referenced in the "for it is written". It also follow from this that you should feed your enemy, etc.
So this is at the very least "forgive your enemy, and is a good approximation to "love your enemy".
This does not rule out retributive justice. (And as I mentioned above, you have not yet said that you think Jesus contradicts old testament sayings, like "an eye for an eye".
There is more on "doing good to your enemies" in the old testament:Exodus 23
[4] If you meet your enemy's ox or his ass going astray, you shall bring it back to him. [5] If you see the ass of one who hates you lying under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it, you shall help him to lift it up.
So you might make an argument that the word love is not specifically metioned, but it's not difficult to see that we can infer from this that loving your enemies is something you are supposed to do.
This should be at least enough to show you that there are varying degrees of interpretation on what "Jesus's standards" are, and that yours is not the only objectively correct one. Therefore, you should not use it as though it is, and say "The standards of Jesus which I see as being new and apart from those contained in the old testament."
This is already a great reduction from just the basic "christian principles" which you started out with.
From here now, it would be helpful if you could name exactly which of those standards you mean.
I do prefer "strive to be" and that was the purpose of those two passages there. It's impossible to follow "be perfect", and Jesus understands this. It's not impossible to strive to be perfect.He does though say he wishes you
Matthew 5
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Jesus tells you to be perfect (or strive to be, if you prefer). Not following this instruction is not following Jesus.
This is a good analogy to illustrate an argument that I was making earlier. If they have "loved their enemy" then the rock is at the top. To take an example. If they have been nice and forgiving, then the rock is halfway up. Pushing the rock represents trying. Similarly to the leaving cert example, if you see them pushing the rock up halfways, then you can infer that they are trying to get it to the top. Especially if they say "I'm trying to push this rock to the top" (i.e, I'm a christian).No, I'm seeing that they are not trying, and then knowing they aren't trying.
There is a difference between someone trying to push a rock up a hill and someone leaving the rock to go do something else.
They may at some point come back and start pushing the rock again, but given the instruction is basically keep pushing the rock, this does little to demonstrate that they were trying while not pushing the rock.
When a person ceases to try to do something it is generally obvious to all those observing them.
Again, the question you have never answered, how do you infer from what you see people doing to what they are trying to do? Especially when there is as in this case a scale like that. If someone is not properly loving you (you have observed this) then what reason have you to infer that they are not trying?
To infer they are trying I have already given many arguments. And just to point out "trying to be nice to someone" is not in anyway like pushing a rock up a hill" as it is an internal struggle. You can only see their behaviour. The trying is trying to regulate their behaviour. This may well be the first time I've pointed this out, but it's very important.
There are two possibilities here:It is consistent, though I can in this instance understand your confusion.
I believe it is possible for someone to deliberately delude themselves about aspects of their religion that they find troublesome.
-They are actually convincing themselves that somehting which they know is false is true (impossible)
-They are merely "lying to themselves" and know what Jesus's teachings actually are.
So if it is the second, then it is just another case of "deliberately abandoning Jesus's teachings", but it is not a case of "misinterpreting the text", more a case of "pretending to misinterpret the text". That is why I said it was irrelevent and inconsistent.
You either think that the christians you have met do not understand the teachings of jesus, or that they are deliberately abandoning those teachings. You cannot think both.
And in this paragraph. The same arguments can be shown. They only believe one of the interpretations is true. It's not possible for them to believe that they are both true. They are either deliberately ignoring the true one (in which case they are abandoning the teachings of jesus) or they think that the wrong one is true.You miss-understand the analogy. The couple are not misinterpreting scripture. They are choosing an interpretation that is easier on them rather than facing up to the reality of the situation. Deliberately deluding themselves so to speak.
So to say that they don't understand, and are deliberately abandoning, is inconsistent. But since your original claim was that the christians you've met are deliberately abandoning then we can stick to that.
On a humerous side note, the argument there has shown that your saying "every christian I've met has actively abandoned trying to attain Jesus' standards" direclty and logically implies "every christian I've met knows what jesus' standards are". And I notice that you also like to say "Christians dont' appreciate the standards of Jesus", under your above statement this is not possible. So you will need to modify your statement again, if you want it to be consistent with things you have said elsewhere.
Of course it's possible that you meant "some christians who knew what jesus taught deliberately abandoned", and "some others didn't know what jesus actually taught".
Both of these statements are not so bad, or even what I would consider bigotted. To say "all haven't known what the teachings of jesus were" would still seem questionable, and to say "all have deliberately abandoned jesus" is also something I would have issue with. Of course, the possibility remains that you've met like 3 christians. If this is the case then your statement amounts to telling a story about 3 people you met,a nd it's not really something worth discussing. But it would still be helpful in that case if you were to tell us how you knew what they were trying.
Edit:
I see that youar argument about misinterpretation is something along the lines of:
-They know they are not christian, since they know what jesus asks but deliberately follow their own different version of what he asks. So if they know they are not christian and call themselves a christian they are simply lying to everyone.
Is this true? If that is the case then your statement must become "every christian I've met is a liar", since you have ruled out genuine misinterpretation. This is of course not inconsistent with "deliberately abandoned the teachings of jesus", but is also a very very questionable, and predjudiced statement. So apologies for misconstruing your argument earlier, but If I could give some advice: If your long paragraph about "misinterpretations" and things like that had little other point than to say "they were lying" then you should have just said that.
I gave the argument "they said they were christians, and this is some evidence that they strive towards christian goals", you responded with a series of long and confusing statements, which amounted to as much as "they were lying". This is essentially pretending there is an argument where there is none. But forgive me if this was misconstruing your statement. Is there anyway that we can interpret what you said there as anything other than "they were lying"?0 -
-
So by Jesus' standards you mean the ones which you perceive to be "added" to those in the old testament, like loving your enemy. Of course this is nothing something which we can all just take your word for. It is a well known quote of Jesus, and is contained there in Matthew 5
But you will probably agree with this, you have not been saying that he has been contradicting the laws (there's no need to say that here, you could if you like, but it would distract from our main points), but supplementing them, with new things. However, if we take your favourite examples of 'turn the other cheek' and 'love your enemy' we can find:
Also in the new testament, in Romans 12:19 to 12:21 we have Paul basing his whole "forgiving your enemies" argument on the old testament itself:
So his argument is, avenge not yourselves (against your enemies), because it says this in the old testament. The old testament is referenced in the "for it is written". It also follow from this that you should feed your enemy, etc.
So this is at the very least "forgive your enemy, and is a good approximation to "love your enemy".
This does not rule out retributive justice. (And as I mentioned above, you have not yet said that you think Jesus contradicts old testament sayings, like "an eye for an eye".
There is more on "doing good to your enemies" in the old testament:
So you might make an argument that the word love is not specifically metioned, but it's not difficult to see that we can infer from this that loving your enemies is something you are supposed to do.
This should be at least enough to show you that there are varying degrees of interpretation on what "Jesus's standards" are, and that yours is not the only objectively correct one. Therefore, you should not use it as though it is, and say "The standards of Jesus which I see as being new and apart from those contained in the old testament."
This is already a great reduction from just the basic "christian principles" which you started out with.
From here now, it would be helpful if you could name exactly which of those standards you mean.
You seem to be having a conversation with yourself there raah.
Can you sum up what point you think you are making. You seem to be trying to argue that Jesus didn't actually add anything to the Old Testament.I do prefer "strive to be" and that was the purpose of those two passages there. It's impossible to follow "be perfect", and Jesus understands this. It's not impossible to strive to be perfect.
Fair enough. The point remains either way.Again, the question you have never answered, how do you infer from what you see people doing to what they are trying to do?
There is such an obvious answer to that question it seemed unnecessary to clarify, but if you insist.
Some things people do are mutually exclusive to claims that they are trying to do something else.
For example if my friend said he was trying to remain faithful to his wife while he was in the middle of booking a holiday for him and his mistress I would easily say "Er, no you aren't" since booking a dirty weekend away with your mistress is not trying to stay faithful to your wife.
The plausibility of someone trying to do something decreases proportionately to how they act. There is a difference between trying and claiming to try.To infer they are trying I have already given many arguments. And just to point out "trying to be nice to someone" is not in anyway like pushing a rock up a hill" as it is an internal struggle.
With external consequences. I totally reject your idea that someone can be trying to do something while all external evidence demonstrates them doing something contrary to it. (to clarify the contrary to loving your enemy is not hating your enemy, but merely any activity that falls short of love)
That may help you sleep at night, but it is a nonsense notion of trying to do something.
Using a personal example, I'm currently overweight and I go through periods of trying to lose weight. I don't though kid myself. If I'm heading into Burger King I'm not also going to say "Yeah I'm trying to lose weight" as I'm eating my Whopper. I'm not trying. I have given up. I might get back on the wagon a few days later.
Your notions of trying though are some what of a valuble window into the mind of how some Christians can claim with a straight face how they are trying to be better Christians while all evidence suggests opposite, if you think all you have to do be doing is saying you are trying.-They are actually convincing themselves that somehting which they know is false is true (impossible)
It isn't impossible at all, people do it all the time.-They are merely "lying to themselves" and know what Jesus's teachings actually are.
That is the same thing. Lying to yourself is convincing yourself that something that is false is true or vice versa. It is surprisingly easy to convince yourself of the correctness of a false argument.You either think that the christians you have met do not understand the teachings of jesus, or that they are deliberately abandoning those teachings. You cannot think both.
I've met more than one Christian raah.
We seem to be getting back into really long responses, so I'll leave it at that since you seem to be just repeating yourself. If there is any new point that you think I missed feel free to let me know.0 -
The conclusion of all that is that you cannot glibly ascribe a uniqueness or difference from the old testament to this or that standard of Jesus without argument. I.e it is not immediately clear to everyone what you mean when you say "the new standards of Jesus" especially since I gave arguments for why many of those you cited as new to Jesus were contained or logically entailed in old testament booksYou seem to be having a conversation with yourself there raah.
Can you sum up what point you think you are making. You seem to be trying to argue that Jesus didn't actually add anything to the Old Testament.
Again, there are only certain logical outcomes and interpretations of the things you say. In that post, what you try to invalidate as a "conversation with myself" is a logical exlporation of the possible interpretations and outcomes of those interpretations. This was done pre-temptively, as it seems that your standard counter argument is to say "I meant this other interpretation", until it gets to a point where you are saying "I mean this thing that isn't conveyed in the meanings of those words there".
So again, you are going to have to be specific as to which "standards of Jesus" you see as new (you've already given examples, which I have shown are at least not as clear cut as you think), and in the spirit of honesty, do not use the term "new standards of Jesus" in such a general and vague manner as though it were a given that those standards were new.
Your point was that not striving to be perfect is not obeying Jesus's instructions. I did not dispute that. I was giving an argument to support that they were striving, as well as an argument to support that, rather than in your statement where you quote Jesus saying "be perfect" to say that he demands perfection, that Jesus asks people only to try.Fair enough. The point remains either way.
There is of course a difference between trying and claiming to try. But we can at least use the claim that a person is trying as one source of evidence pointing to the workings of their will.There is such an obvious answer to that question it seemed unnecessary to clarify, but if you insist.
Some things people do are mutually exclusive to claims that they are trying to do something else.
For example if my friend said he was trying to remain faithful to his wife while he was in the middle of booking a holiday for him and his mistress I would easily say "Er, no you aren't" since booking a dirty weekend away with your mistress is not trying to stay faithful to your wife.
The plausibility of someone trying to do something decreases proportionately to how they act. There is a difference between trying and claiming to try.
Their actions point either to:
- a failing of the will
- an absenece of the application of their will to the task
Now, to take your example, booking a weekend with some person who isn't your wife is of course not 'trying to be faithful'. However, and this is the important part, it is also not 'not trying to be faithful'. Booking a weekend is booking a weekend. Our inferences about whether or not the person is trying this must come from elsewhere.
Now, you have given an unsuitable example here. You are using "trying to be faithful" to the wife, and using as supporting this "booking a weekend". Now of course, we could go a step down and ask about whether or not he is trying to book this weekend, but that wouldn't change the fact that booking a weekend with a person is evidence that the man is not 'trying to be faithful'. You must also note that there is a difference between something being evidence in support of something, and being a definitive proof of that thing.
So now, and this gets back to the very very start, and things you have said. I'm going to paraphrase, because all that quoting is not necessary. If one of these is wrong, then ignore the rest of the post, and just correct that, then I'll correct my post, and then you respond to that. That will prevent things being lost in multiple quotes.
So in the case of the things you have mentioned these "higher standards of Jesus", it is not the case that you have seen the people "trying the opposite", this you've gone over many times. So would agree that your example up there is not a proper comparison? Since you've said a million times, they are not "trying to do the opposite, or something different, or trying to hate, they are just not trying to love". In your example you have given a person "being unfaithful" from which we could infer that they were trying to be unfaithful. Being unfaithful is the opposite to being faithful. Especially when you put it in the way you did it. If in that thing they are "trying to organise the holiday" which you have assumed, then this comparision doesn't work.
If they are not "trying to organise the holiday" then they are not "trying to be unfaithful".
So we have two counts of inconsistency there. One is where the argument is inconsistent with itself, and the other is where the argument is inconsistent with those things you have said about the christian principles, and your perception of christians.
These were things like "they were not trying to hate me, I could just see no manifestation of their trying to love me". This is not consistent with your example there, because if we were to swop the words love for faithful and hate for unfaithful we would get you using an example where you say every christian you've met has hated you.
And again, this is not consistent with the example. The reasons are in sweet bullet(dash) form:With external consequences. I totally reject your idea that someone can be trying to do something while all external evidence demonstrates them doing something contrary to it. (to clarify the contrary to loving your enemy is not hating your enemy, but merely any activity that falls short of love)
-You are phrasing this as passive.
-An action which falls short of love could be merely being nice. (you were very explicit about their being nice being a possibility). All that is necessary is that they are not actively manifesting their love
-In your example you show an active manifestation of unfaithfulness
-You clearly mentioned, there, that you do not mean an active manifestation of unlove. You mean an inaction. You mean a passive lack of manifestations of love.
Well again the burger king is an example of the opposite to trying to lose weight. If you were "trying" to go to burger king then you were "trying to gain weight". I would not phrase it like that, or view it like that. I would say that your will power slipped for a moment and you went into burger king. When a person with a cigarette says "I'm trying to quit" and is smoking a fag with a guilty expression, it's your natural impulse to feel sorry for them. You go "ah yeah, that's hard". However, and this is where your examples come in, if you saw them making like a 12 month plan about how many cigarettes they were going to smoke, you'd say "hmm, I know you claim to be trying, but this example shows that you are not trying". Anyway, the point is it's not as black and white as that.That may help you sleep at night, but it is a nonsense notion of trying to do something.
Using a personal example, I'm currently overweight and I go through periods of trying to lose weight. I don't though kid myself. If I'm heading into Burger King I'm not also going to say "Yeah I'm trying to lose weight" as I'm eating my Whopper. I'm not trying. I have given up. I might get back on the wagon a few days later.
Your notions of trying though are some what of a valuble window into the mind of how some Christians can claim with a straight face how they are trying to be better Christians while all evidence suggests opposite, if you think all you have to do be doing is saying you are trying.
So the same corollary comes with your burger king example. It assumes that you were "Trying to go to burger king", because if you weren't "trying to go to burger king" then you could very well have been "trying not to go to burger king".
So if you apply this to the christian example, you are giving an example of a case where you "try to gain weight" because you "try to go to burger king". So the christians would be "trying to hate you".
Ok, well right now, convince yourself that you have 3 legs. It's impossible to believe something which you know is logically contradictory. To actually believe it. Don't just imagine yourself with 3 legs, convince yourself you have three legs. On top of that, it's probably just basically grammatically and logically impossible to say that phrase.It isn't impossible at all, people do it all the time.
That is the same thing. Lying to yourself is convincing yourself that something that is false is true or vice versa. It is surprisingly easy to convince yourself of the correctness of a false argument.I've met more than one Christian raah.
We seem to be getting back into really long responses, so I'll leave it at that since you seem to be just repeating yourself. If there is any new point that you think I missed feel free to let me know.
Ok well if you don't want to respond to them then that's fine. That is indeed a case of an impasse, but it's because you won't listen to my arguments, or perhaps aren't reading them properly.
Ahm, one important last thing. That I thought of there. From our previous arguments, I know that you already think it's impossible for someone to act based on reason. (Where you are saying things like people can only follow this or that moral law because they already feel like following it, and therefore only ever act in accordance with their feelings)
This may be causing some confusion. The kind of 'trying' which is in question here is an active resistence to your baser instincts. Indeed this is what much of christianity is about. So it's not the same as "trying" to push a rock up a hill. That is physical trying, and it's a different thing. Even if you are a materialist, the two categories will be obvious, and they can both be physical.
The kind of trying involved with the christians is about "trying to act" or "trying not to act". The trying is "mental" and involves the "will". If you are not strong enough to push a rock up a hill then you are not strong enough. But if you do not have the will power or mental perserverense to push it up the hill, even though you're strong enough, then you are weak willed. If you never have to apply your will to the task, then you are not trying.
This can be where you are so strong that it does not require any effort, and therefore does not require any willpower to sustain the effort. Here again we see will power is resisting your natural impulse to rest. (Of course, you can see this as just another natural impulse, but perhaps one of your higher mamallian brain, rather than one of your lower ones. Or whatever, all that matters is that you draw a distinction between your reasoned impulses and your unreasoned impulses).
So you've already implicitly used some of these categories in your phrases. You said that the basic christian principles were easy, and christians were therefore not trying to maintain them. But then you mix them all up.
I do believe we are very close to a conclusion tbh. Would you accept changing:Wicknight
Certain. I think that I've never met a true Christian, since every Christian I've met has displayed behavior where they have abandoned trying to adhere to Jesus' standards.
To:
You could even say which ones you specifically mean. I think that since you have not addressed those arguments I gave you could at least admit that it is not clear cut for you to claim that Jesus' standards are in general new. And since I've picked your specific examples to argue against, and you have not rebutted them or said why you disagree, you could accept that with these ones it is your opinion rather than universally accepted truth that they are new.Wicknight
Certain. I think that I've never met a true Christian, since every Christian I've met has displayed behavior where they have abandoned trying to adhere to[what I see as] Jesus' [new and different from the old testament] standards.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement