You might be interested in listening on-line to my sermon which I preached at the New Haven, Michigan, Seventh-day Adventist Church on May 1 of this year (2010). It sets forth my recent findings concerning the prophecies of the seven seals, applied to history after 1844, which allow us to see where we are today in the divine sequence of events.
Many Christians and especially most Seventh-day Adventists recognize that the event portrayed in Revelation chapter five is the Investigative, pre-Advent Judgment, the same one portrayed in Daniel chapter 7:9-14. That passage in Daniel explicitly says it is the Judgment, and the context clearly indicates that it comes before the Second Coming of Christ. But if we admit that Revelation five portrays the Judgment, then it is logically inescapable that the prophecies of the seven seals must transpire during the Judgment, since this is when the seals of the book featured in that chapter are said to be opened.
In the interpretation of Bible prophecy, we must ever keep in mind the strict admonition of 2 Peter 1:20, 21: “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (NKJV)
In order to avoid a private interpretation, we must do three reasonable things. First, all prophetic symbols must be defined by Scripture alone. We can do this, because the prophets “spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” Thus prophecies written a thousand years apart in different languages, can still be relied upon to be consistent in the meaning of the symbols used. This is one of the strongest evidences for the divine inspiration of the Bible, that this works! One Divine Mind is in evidence over all. An example of the way prophetic symbols are defined in Scripture is seen in Revelation 17:15.
Second, the prophecies must be applied to history, during the time periods context indicates to us that they apply. This is seen in the prophecies of Daniel (see for example Daniel 8:20-26). Also in Revelation five, the context is the Judgment. This indicates to us when the prophecies of the seven seals must be applied by comparison to history.
Third, we must be reasonable in understanding whether something is literal narrative, or symbolic. One of the most simple methods of doing this is to ask ourselves if what is described CAN reasonably be literal. If most likely not, then we should expect it to be figurative and symbolic. Since the book of Revelation is apocalyptic prophecy, we should expect that most of it is symbolic.
Of course, there are very compelling Scriptural reasons for believing that Revelation five depicts the Judgment.
Clearly judicial statements are made that an investigation is being made to find someone who is worthy: "Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?" (v. 2); and then that "no man was FOUND worthy" (vs. 3-4). Then the Lamb is FOUND to be worthy: "behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof....Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof" (vs. 5, 9). And as a result of the Lamb being found worthy to open the book, the four beasts and 24 elders sing a song of praise to the Lamb for saving mankind: "thou wast slain, and hast redeemed…." (v. 9). Also as a result of the Lamb being found worthy, It is declared: "Thou art worthy to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing" (v. 12). Compare this to Daniel 7:14: "And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom...." This came as a result of the Judgment, when "the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days" (Daniel 7:13).
Comparison with the text of Revelation five and Daniel 7:9-14 shows many parallels:
Other thrones are mentioned besides God's throne. Compare Daniel 7:9 with Revelation 4:4.
The Son of Man (the Lamb) receives dominion and a kingdom: Revelation 5:9-13; compare Daniel 7:13, 14.
The people of God are said to be saved in His kingdom as a result: Revelation 5:9, 10; compare Daniel 7:27.
A book or books are mentioned, which need to be opened and consulted: Revelation 5:1-5, 7-9; compare Daniel 7:10. Revelation five focuses on one particular book which needs to be opened but cannot be opened, unless someone worthy to open it can be found.
It is also worth noting that a unique description of the number of angels serving before the throne of God is found in both chapters: "...and the number of them [angels] was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands." (Revelation 5:11.) Compare Daniel 7:10: "thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the Judgment was set, and the books were opened." Modern translations render this "myriads upon myriads," or "myriads of myriads," instead of "ten thousand times ten thousand." But still, these similar formulations are only found in Revelation 5:11 and in Daniel 7:10, and no where else in all of Scripture.
As for the date in history when the Judgment began, this we can see from the prophecies of Daniel 8:14 and 9:25. Daniel 8:14 gives us the longest time prophecy in the Bible—2300 prophetic days, which signify 2300 literal years. Since Daniel fainted before the prophecy could be completed, an angel was sent later to explain the starting point for the time prophecy. History reveals to us that in the Autumn of 457 B.C., Ezra arrived in the land of Judah with the document from King Artaxerxes and then published throughout the land the commandment it contained to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem, as stipulated in Daniel 9:25. From 457 B.C., 2300 years takes us to 1844 A.D. (Remember, there was no year zero—1 B.C. was followed by 1 A.D.) This same time prophecy in Daniel is important, because it specifies the time when Jesus was to be anointed for His ministry, and when three and a half years later, He would be “cut off, but not for Himself” (v. 26), and in doing so would end any more need for the sacrifices of the Hebrew sanctuary (v. 27).
In the Hebrew sanctuary services, the “cleansing of the sanctuary” was the Day of Judgment. Thus Daniel 8:14 sets the time for the beginning of the Judgment, and Daniel 9:25 gives us the date where we start counting.
One of the strongest evidences for faith, and for our confidence in the Bible as the Word of God, is the perfect reliability of all Bible prophecy. As the prophet declared: “Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, `My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,' Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.” (Isaiah 46:9-11; NKJV)
One of the last divine warning messages to all the earth begins in Revelation 14:6, 7 with the words: “Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth--to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people--saying with a loud voice, ‘Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.’” Here the “everlasting gospel” is equated with the proclamation that “the hour of His judgment has come.”
Indeed, Revelation chapter five does show us that the Judgment is the “good news” of the gospel for those who have faith in God, because there we see that Jesus, the Son of God and Son of Man—called in this chapter “the Lamb”—stands for us in Judgment. He does this not merely as an Advocate by our side. He stands in our place! His worthiness is counted as our worthiness. His works of faith, become for us the pure and perfect robe of the saints, by which we are judged worthy of reward, because He has become the new Head and Representative of our race, the New Adam, in whom we all are given new life.
It is also available from Amazon.com.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
If you weren't a regular this would qualify as spam.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, no, it wouldn't. It would still be very dramatically mistaken, to put it mildly, but not spam. I mean, I can't emphasize strongly enough how wrong I think Ron is, and how wrong the search for prophecy is as opposed to simply living the virtues Christ taught - specifically the ones about how to treat our fellow human beings - but it is what he genuinely believes, so far as I can tell. So, it's a marketplace of ideas, let the guy have his shot.
If it's as bad as you suggest, name-calling won't be necessary to show it.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Really? I've seen plenty of long blocks of text followed by a "Buy this!" link.
If his name was danprophet1140 if would be indistinguishable from a report-worthy post.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Spam is a matter of intent. His name isn't danprophet1140.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
White Whale, if Orincoro posted a link to some of his music, then discussed it a bit, and then posted a link to where we could buy some of it, nobody would call it spam. (Orincoro, you are the one who does music, right? I know someone posted some beautiful music a while back, I feel like it was you. My apologies if I'm confused.) It isn't spam when Chris Bridges posts a link to one of his articles. It wouldn't be spam if Chris posted a link to a novel he was selling, either.
Now, I suppose you're essentially right; if he wasn't a regular it would be spam. But he is a regular here. So, it's not spam. So there's no point to your post, except to try and put him down.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
"The one who does music..." hehe....love that.
We should all have character descriptions
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah that was me.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Damn. I need to write a book.
All the cool kids are doing it Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Yeah that was me.
Cool. Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Yeah. I'm sorry. My posts were uncalled for.
I was a little tipsy...and I shouldn't post when I'm tipsy.
Sorry Ron.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Meh...it COULD have been spam, but that is a judgement call. I don't think it would have been, but I HAVE seen spam that looked like that.
Ron IS a regular, and we know this is a subject close to his heart, so of course it isn't. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Anyone wanna buy my genuine super authentic snake oil? Now only 99.99$ (Canadian) made with real snake oil milked from the most sexy snakes, for us QUALITY is our number one concern if this ad interests you come down to www.SnakeOil.su and make your order within the next 15 minutes you'll get two additional bottles of freshly milked snake oil FREE!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There are times I seriously doubt the wisdom of including Revelation in the canon.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The book of Revelation is the only book in the Bible we have that directly comes from Jesus "as told to" John. Even the Sermon on the Mount was only a summary from the recollection of a hearer, and not dictated by Jesus.
It is worth noting the first three verses of the book of Revelation:
quote:The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants--things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw.
Revelation is like the Epistle of Jesus. If He chose to present His information in symbolic form, that was His call, and we should expect that He had a reason, not question its value or whether it should be a part of Scripture. Martin Luther did not at first think the book of James should be in the Bible (because it said things like "faith without works is dead"), but eventually he was honest enough to admit he could not deny the evidence that the book is a legitimate part of New Testament Canon.
Besides since the primary evidence for the divine inspiration of Scripture is its reliable, accurate prophecies, any desire to cast off any of those prophecies would put us on the wrong side, and play into the hands of the enemy.
Blayne, evolution theory is the "snake oil." And multitudes buy it merely because it is fashionable.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
kmbboots: [tiny]...but it's so lurid and exciting! [/tiny]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
TLDR; what was your conclusion? Can we expect the Rapture to give us some peace and quiet within the next few years?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mucus, it is human history and Satan's mechinations in it that are lurid. It is God's reaction to it and His purpose for dealing with it and setting things right that are exciting to read about.
I like what a past pastor of mine liked to say: "The Bible gives me hope. I've read the last chapter, and we win!"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
KoM: Which brings up the question of how one can make money off this. There should be all sorts of insurance-like business opportunities.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: kmbboots: [tiny]...but it's so lurid and exciting! [/tiny]
Exactly. So much more appealing than boring old stuff like, "Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me", or, "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you."
You know, the parts where we are told to do something.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me"
And yet unaccountably you seem to be posting this from a computer which you have, presumably, not sold, using an Internet account whose monthly cost you have not given to the poor.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or, from work.
Some have managed to follow the words of Jesus just about perfectly, most not so much, myself only poorly. Still, I think it more important to work on that than on worrying about the precise number of thrones and trumpets.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Or, from work.
Thereby demonstrating that the labourer is not worth her hire.
quote:myself only poorly
Well then, let me offer you an opportunity to improve. I will ask of you, and we'll see if you give or turn away, eh? I'll name a charity; will you give it 100 dollars?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I assume you mean without decreasing from what I give to other charities. Honestly, you are right. I should. It will cause some hardship, but I should.
I'm a little wary of letting you choose the charity, though. I believe the intent was to give to people in need. What did you have in mind?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, here you go.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Done. Actually signed up for a recurring membership plus a donation.
My apologies for suspecting that you might suggest something dickish or wasteful. I should have trusted you.
(Hope they don't mind having a Catholic member.)
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Or, from work.
Thereby demonstrating that the labourer is not worth her hire.
quote:myself only poorly
Well then, let me offer you an opportunity to improve. I will ask of you, and we'll see if you give or turn away, eh? I'll name a charity; will you give it 100 dollars?
I've been trying for a couple of minutes to articulate why this bugs me, KoM, but I can't seem to do it very well. Oh well. Here's the sloppy version.
It's not really nice to butt into other people's finances, and it's inappropriate to come up with this kind of morality challenge. Nobody is accountable to you for how much they donate to the needy.
I'm not normally bothered by the kind of grandiose fantasies you sometimes describe about how you'd improve the world, because they are just fantasies, but this is intruding into someone's actual personal life.
Kate's a really great sport, apparently, and obviously doesn't need anyone to speak up on her behalf, but I just have to tell you. This is creepy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, scifibum. I agree in principle but in this particular case KoM is right (whatever his reasons). I do sometimes need a push to step up.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It's not really nice to butt into other people's finances, and it's inappropriate to come up with this kind of morality challenge. Nobody is accountable to you for how much they donate to the needy.
As the result of my inappropriate actions, money has been transferred from the wealthy West to people in need, and from a credulous theist to an organisation that'll do some actual good with it; additionally, kmb gets to feel holier-than-someone and a good example is set for Ron. If the price of that is me being rude, meh. I'm rude anyway, why not let some good come of it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do you think that this particular transaction has had an impact on my holier-than-anybody level?
Do you think that the organisations I already donate to fail to do actual good? What organisations do you suppose those are?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Catholics for Kicking Kittens? Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Catholics for Killing Lab Rats, actually.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I would suppose that you give a bit to your church, which is actively harmful. As for your holier-than-anyone level: In a word, yes. I do believe that being challenged to live up to your own morality, and responding by putting your money where your mouth is (although, admittedly, we've only your word for this) will buy you some warm that-showed-him fuzzies.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I would suppose that you give a bit to your church, which is actively harmful. As for your holier-than-anyone level: In a word, yes. I do believe that being challenged to live up to your own morality, and responding by putting your money where your mouth is (although, admittedly, we've only your word for this) will buy you some warm that-showed-him fuzzies.
Which is much more expensive than the very cheap - "that showed her" atheist condescension
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed, that's another cost of religion, your warm fuzzies become that much more expensive. Pascal was a chump.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: One of the most simple methods of doing this is to ask ourselves if what is described CAN reasonably be literal. If most likely not, then we should expect it to be figurative and symbolic. Since the book of Revelation is apocalyptic prophecy, we should expect that most of it is symbolic.
for a uh ... given definition of 'reasonably'
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
IMO, KOM just got owned.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
kmbboots: don't bother. Last time this topic came up KoM summarily sentenced me to a death camp.
Living up to your moral ideals within your means is not enough, in his eyes. If you cannot attain the stated goal on a level unmatched by any save possibly Jesus himself then you have utterly failed and your morals are bankrupt. And he will continue to hammer you on that fact until you agree that your faith is worthless and harmful or you walk away from him.
On the plus side, good to know I pimp my books here. Now I just need to write one...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In no particular order and what I can recall off the top of my head, some recent or recurring donations:
ACLU Doctors Without Borders Catholic Charities - specifically directed toward Haitian relief. NPR American Friends Service Committee My parish's Haitian relief efforts and other outreach programs Equality California
ETA: I should add that none of these were what anyone would call large donations.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm happy to exchange Internet status for actual money any day of the week. Consider the harm the Catholic Church might have done with that 100 dollars, or whatever it was. Now it'll be going to a good cause instead. A bit of being shown? Pff. Cheap at twice the price.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I understood that the exercise was intended to push me to give in addition to other donations rather than instead of other donations. No?
BTW, looks like a nice little charity just getting started if anyone else wants to give it a look.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: kmbboots: don't bother. Last time this topic came up KoM summarily sentenced me to a death camp.
Piffle. You had a fair trial before a jury of no less than five Atheist Purity Commissioners first. And it took them a good three posts to reach their verdict, too.
quote:Living up to your moral ideals within your means is not enough, in his eyes.
When the ideal is, in fact, to reduce yourself to poverty - that's what the man says, don't blame me - then there is no way to live up to that "within your means".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I understood that the exercise was intended to push me to give in addition to other donations rather than instead of other donations. No?
Right, but who knows what else might have pushed you to make a donation in addition to your usual habit, and to whom that might have gone?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Goodness! Could have been to anybody. Phew!!!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Crisis averted. GREAT JOB KoM.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I'm happy to exchange Internet status for actual money any day of the week. Consider the harm the Catholic Church might have done with that 100 dollars, or whatever it was. Now it'll be going to a good cause instead.
Or they could have done something good with it. Do you know for a fact that the money would have gone towards causing harm to someone?
I pay fast offerings in my church, and the church uses this money to help struggling families with food and bills. It is used as a temporary helping hand. Those struggling receive help from employment specialists that help them find work, etc. Are you saying my donation to the church is doing more harm than good?
How about the 80,000 pounds of food, tents, lights, tarps, baby supplies, etc that the church had on the way to Haiti before even the US government sent supplies? This did them harm?
Am I misunderstanding you KoM? From your statement I couldn't tell if you were being serious or using humor. The statement looked more like something Orincoro would write. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, well? 100 dollars in today's economy is a claim to an amount of power which a rational society would keep well away from crazy people. For 100 dollars you can do things which Alexander the Great couldn't even dream of. That theists routinely have access to this sort of power is, frankly, scary.
As an added bonus, I also derailed the thread from Ron's nutso ramblings. So, y'know, win all around.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I wonder what that organization's overhead is?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
They do a pretty good job of answering that question in their FAQ. Looks like the overhead is paid by the $9 membership fees and other grants.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I understood that the exercise was intended to push me to give in addition to other donations rather than instead of other donations. No?
Right, but who knows what else might have pushed you to make a donation in addition to your usual habit, and to whom that might have gone?
AHA YOU SEE IT ALL FALLS INTO MY UH DESIRES SO IT IS NOT LIKE I JUST GOT SHOWED UP AT ALL Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hey. It is good for people to be challenged once in a while. KoM could have picked some charity that I would have had a problem supporting. This one seems to do some good - or at least funnels money to other charities that do good work. If that was his master plan, it was a reasonably benevolent one.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: ... How about the 80,000 pounds of food, tents, lights, tarps, baby supplies, etc that the church had on the way to Haiti before even the US government sent supplies?
In all seriousness, this depends actually.
quote: Earthquake-devastated Haitians need donations of cash -- not clothes, food, medicine, or other relief supplies, as well intended as they might be, aid groups said Thursday.
Such "in-kind" donations can at best take up valuable space in cargo shipments and waste aid workers' time in sorting through the items, charities said. At worst, the food or medicine could be unusable or even dangerous.
Mucus: that's referring to goods given to aid groups to send to Haiti, because aid agencies can do a better job of allocating supplies if they buy them themselves. CRS sent supplies it knew would be needed (and I believe had in pre-prepared caches). Catholic Relief Services is one of the best aid agencies in the world.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I was responding to Geraine, not kmbboots. I have no idea what denomination Geraine is or how his/her church is organized. (I was assuming that it was a different church due to the phrase "I pay fast offerings in my church", emphasis mine)
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I thought KoM was trying to make a theist look like a fool.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Probably the LDS church, which also has a very robust disaster-relief organization.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, you're right, I misread. I had thought he was referring to the Catholic church. Yeah, sending goods was explicitly what the aid agencies (including CRS) had asked people not to do (along with going to Haiti to attempt to help out, unless one was a medical professional or had other specialist knowledge being asked for). His church may have had contact with an aid agency that asked for specific goods, though.
(edit: this was written before several of the posts above it)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
"You're not really living up to your own ideals, kmbboots."
"You're right, I should do better. Here's a tangible effort in that direction, right here and now."
"I sure showed her and all those dirty theists!"
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah yes, the LDS church would have done a good job of selecting needed aid for Haiti.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I think it was more like:
"Religion sure is ridiculous. Too many competing ethical standards, and theists are not thought-out enough to live according to them rationally. Anyways, their ethical standards are more about making themselves feel good than they are about morality and truth. Lemme see if I can demonstrate that..."
"Hm...kmb is being a good sport. I don't want to take this too far..."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:"I sure showed her and all those dirty theists!"
I am of the opinion that I did not say this.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: ... His church may have had contact with an aid agency that asked for specific goods, though.
Yep. Hence, "this depends, actually"
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:"I sure showed her and all those dirty theists!"
I am of the opinion that I did not say this.
You're right.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I am of the opinion that I did not say this.
I'm of that opinion myself too, actually. I was exaggerating for effect.
But I'm also of the opinion that a person does not have to come right out and say something plainly in order to communicate a given message, either. Such as gloating after someone answers a direct challenge.
quote:"Hm...kmb is being a good sport. I don't want to take this too far..."
Heh, oh yes, Amroth, KoM is certainly full of consideration for the feelings and sentiments of theists, yes?
quote:I thought KoM was trying to make a theist look like a fool.
I am of this opinion. Which is fine, really. But when the effort fails, own up to it and move on, don't gloat about how your cunning manipulation still achieved the desired end.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well now, there were two possible outcomes:
Kmb refuses to pay. I gloat at her revealed hypocrisy.
Kmb pays. A charity of my choice gets money, a really annoying theist loses money.
Either way, I win. It's true that I thought the first option more likely than the second; but if you really think I'd rather have a bit of a gloat than extract actual money from theists, money for which they have done real work and which contains true power, well - all I can say is that you're wrong. And yes, I did consider both possibilities before posting my challenge.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Eh...stop picking on KoM. As I wrote, it was a reasonably benevolent challenge. Had he been trying to be a jackass, he would have made a better job of it.
ETA: He didn't actually do anything to me than I did to Ron. He was just more specific. I think we are both right.
ETA: Giving something is not really the same as losing it.
ETA again: KoM, while rereading I noticed that you noted that we only had my word that I made a donation. You are quite correct. I can at least show you that I became a member. I can either send you a message if you give me your member name, or you can send me a message. My member name is the same as it is here.
[ May 18, 2010, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
We're not picking on KoM. The thing I love about this community is that we're all willing to hold up the mirror of truth for one another.
KoM tries to do it for us - and I think that he could do with a quick gander in the mirror every once in a while.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Speaking of disaster relief agencies, ever hear of ADRA--Adventist Development and Relief Agency? Or Maranatha Voluteers International?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Nope.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Revelation is like the Epistle of Jesus.
You know, this has been eating at me. The image of Jesus as, like, the Michael Bay of prophets really bothers me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Either way, I win. It's true that I thought the first option more likely than the second; but if you really think I'd rather have a bit of a gloat than extract actual money from theists, money for which they have done real work and which contains true power, well - all I can say is that you're wrong. And yes, I did consider both possibilities before posting my challenge.
I'm sure you did consider both possibilities. But the one you thought was likely, the one that would serve as evidence for your thesis, isn't the one that happened.
quote:As I wrote, it was a reasonably benevolent challenge.
It was a semi-benevolent challenge. As he said, either he gets to crow over your hypocrisy or, as he sees it, snatch some money from a 'really annoying theist' and give it to someone else. The 'for a good cause' part really does seem pretty secondary as far as motives, at least as far as KoM has explained it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I'm sure you did consider both possibilities. But the one you thought was likely, the one that would serve as evidence for your thesis, isn't the one that happened.
Yes, well? I'm a scientist; I hope I can accept the result of an experiment disconfirming my hypothesis as well as the next man.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, there was no snatching. There was an opportunity presented.
KoM, out of curiosity, what have I written that would make you form your original hypothesis?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...I hope I can accept the result of an experiment disconfirming my hypothesis as well as the next man.
Hope for it all you like, you didn't. Rather an ironic thing to say to you considering your criticism of 'wanting to believe', eh?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
KOM (and others)--speaking of testing hypotheses, has it escaped your notice that the objective methods of interpretation of Bible prophecies I have outlined provide for an outside check? We are told in the Bible text to compare the prophecies to the history of the periods specified.
Scripture is self-consistent. It is a miracle in itself that a document written over the course of 1,500 years and in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), could have symbolic prophecies that are entirely consistent when interpreted by the same objective methods.
But even more stunning is the fact that Bible prophecy, objectively interpreted according to the methods I have outlined, do match the history of the period we are told to apply it to, and do so perfectly, with no need for fudging anything, and in every specified detail of the prophecy. In the cases of Daniel 2, 7, 8-9, and 11, this includes history over a thousand years in the future, events in 500 A.D. and beyond, foreseen in documents that date back before the time of Christ. How could merely human ability foresee that a fourth world empire would exist after Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece, and that this Roman empire would indeed qualify as "the iron monarchy" of history, and most surprisingly, would not be replaced by another like all the world empires before it, but would be divided into ten parts? And then that three of those divisions would be defeated and uprooted by the others? And that those divisions would grow into the modern nations of Europe, and exist until the end of time? Doesn't that make it of interest to us to see what the prophecies say are about to happen next?
I have merely shown that the same thing is also true of the prophecies of Jesus in the book of Revelation. The prophecies of the seals do forecast events of the past 166 years, interpreted using the same objective methods as are used in interpreting the prophecies of Daniel, and the prophecies do match the history that has transpired so far with profound accuracy. Doesn't that make it of great interest to us to consider the prophesided events that have not transpired yet, but are next on the list?
The value of Bible prophecy is not merely in knowing what will happen in advance; it is in knowing why things happen, what is really going on behind the scenes, and also in demonstrating to us that no matter what men and devils may conspire to do, God will ultimately bring forth out of it the good end that He has purposed. As the Scripture says, "Surely the wrath of man shall praise You; With the remainder of wrath You shall gird Yourself." (Psalms 76:10; NKJV)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I find it not at all interesting.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmboots--why, or how on earth, not?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
'objective interpretation' in this particular context is just really, really amusing. Especially given your penchant for making completely, unambiguously wrong predictions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think it is silly. I think that your conclusions are a stretch at best. It has no bearing at all on how I relate to God. It has no meaning as far as how I should behave to other people.
It may as well be astrology.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Scripture is self-consistent. It is a miracle in itself that a document written and re-written over the course of 1,500 years and translated into three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek)then translated back, could have symbolic prophecies that are entirely consistent when interpreted by the same objective methods.
Fixed that for you, and italicized just two easily noticed and very striking flaws in your ideas, Ron.
By definition, something symbolic will never be evaluated on a completely objective basis. If it's symbolic, it is fundamentally as much about what you bring to it as it brings to you. The symbol can be either meaningless or badly mistaken if the viewer doesn't have the appropriate context, which in this case is quite often 'already believes it'.
And not only can symbols not be judged strictly on objective grounds, but because we are talking about symbols, they will never, ever be 'entirely consistent'. If they were entirely consistent, they wouldn't be symbols, they would actually be the thing described, with total literal accuracy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It is not materially different from astrology.
To say: "just apply my formula to this information set, and you will see that it perfectly predicts this outcome... no fudging!" is laughable. You choose the formula. To say there is "no fudging" ignores the fact that the entire interpretation is one big swatch of fudge. And you do it all backwards, which is what astrologers do. You start with the assumption that the prophecy is correct, then find the way in which that prophecy can be interpreted in order to lie flush with the reality. That's why it's not useful in predicting the future- it's a process that only works if you can connect the reality at hand with your interpretation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Also, the people who recorded what we know about the people about whom the prophecy prophesized knew ahead of time what the prophecy said. And had an interest in showing the prophecy fulfilled.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ron, I've told you before, you are a filthy liar and I do not intend to communicate with you, with the single exception of arranging, through seconds, a duel.
quote:Hope for it all you like, you didn't.
I must say I do not see how you draw this conclusion. The hypothesis was, "Kmb will not give money to this charity", she did give money to the charity, the hypothesis is disconfirmed.
quote:KoM, out of curiosity, what have I written that would make you form your original hypothesis?
You clearly do not agree with my interpretation of Jesus's words: You have not given away all your worldly goods. Consequently, you presumably believe that you are doing enough - or rather, you believe that there exists an 'enough' which is short of the actual words of the Bible.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Rakeesh, Ron was accurate to say that the books of the Bible were originally written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. (Some in each, not each book written in all three.) That part of your correction is not correct.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... But even more stunning is the fact that Bible prophecy, objectively interpreted according to the methods I have outlined, do match the history of the period we are told to apply it to ...
Yes.
I too find it stunning that an extended period of massaging can result in a happy ending.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Rakeesh, the Bible really was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.
[Edit - Beaten to the punch!]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dkw & Jake,
Yes, I know. I should have said 'translated from these' into various languages, including modern versions of those languages, and then translated back again and so on and so forth. I guess it just didn't fit as easily into the quote, though, so I let myself get sloppy. *wince*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Ron, I've told you before, you are a filthy liar and I do not intend to communicate with you, with the single exception of arranging, through seconds, a duel.
*rolleyes* The best way to ignore someone is to actually ignore them, KoM.
quote:I must say I do not see how you draw this conclusion. The hypothesis was, "Kmb will not give money to this charity", she did give money to the charity, the hypothesis is disconfirmed.
I draw this conclusion because you said, "......I hope I can accept the result of an experiment disconfirming my hypothesis as well as the next man." You didn't actually accept the result very well, certainly not as well as you could have. Crowing about victory in defeat, quite tacky and not very sporting. Definitely not as well as 'the next man' might have done. That's all I meant.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I too find it stunning that an extended period of massaging can result in a happy ending.
I find it often does.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Interestingly, while the Bible prophecies are indeed true, they were actually written by Loki, and are fulfilled due to his meddling - which will unfortunately lead to Ragnarok.
We'd be much better off if the prophecies aren't fulfilled, since they're a contributing factor to the end of the world and the rise of the giants.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Crowing about victory in defeat, quite tacky and not very sporting. Definitely not as well as 'the next man' might have done. That's all I meant.
Ok, in the first place, nothing in the canons of science requires me to be gracious about experimental results I don't like. But more importantly, where do you get the conclusion that I was defeated? Ok, a hypothesis was disconfirmed, big deal. In a scenario that's win-win for me, by construction there is no defeat even if the win I get isn't the win I predicted.
Now, if you want to accuse me of being a bad winner, you might have a point. But having lost nothing, I must rather object to being called a bad loser.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:*rolleyes* The best way to ignore someone is to actually ignore them, KoM.
Indeed, but the good old custom of cutting someone dead is not practiced by merely ignoring them. For it to have its proper effect as social sanction, there must be no doubt that you have registered the presence of the offender and are deliberately dropping him from your attention. If I just wanted to ignore people I'd go get some work done.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: You clearly do not agree with my interpretation of Jesus's words: You have not given away all your worldly goods. Consequently, you presumably believe that you are doing enough - or rather, you believe that there exists an 'enough' which is short of the actual words of the Bible.
Bah. The verse you quoted speaks of a specific commandment given to a specific man. There are other places in the gospels where Jesus interacts with wealthy disciples and does not order them to sell everything they have. It's case-by-case, based on what each Christian values more than Christ. Money is probably at the very top of the list, and Christians really should be a lot poorer. But you can't use that one event as a blanket law given to all of Christian-dom.
But, being the judgmental sort that you are, you'll undoubtedly interpret this as an excuse to be stingy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:*rolleyes* The best way to ignore someone is to actually ignore them, KoM.
Indeed, but the good old custom of cutting someone dead is not practiced by merely ignoring them. For it to have its proper effect as social sanction, there must be no doubt that you have registered the presence of the offender and are deliberately dropping him from your attention. If I just wanted to ignore people I'd go get some work done.
Very true.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The verse you quoted speaks of a specific commandment given to a specific man.
I quoted nothing. Kmb quoted the verse, approvingly, as something that ought to guide the actions of Christians.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Guide, yes. Not define. Not serve as the absolute bar one must hit and still consider themselves Christian.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Sure, Christians can consider the stuff that applies to them as guidelines, and the stuff that applies to others as morally and legally binding Holy Law that must be followed to the letter (of their interpretation).
Conveniently.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But not all Christians do that. Very likely that even most Christians do not do that.
The ones that do often do so very publicly and ferociously, making it even more dramatic (and satisifying) when they get caught being hypocritical.
Doesn't mean that all Christians can be defined the same way.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Interestingly, while the Bible prophecies are indeed true, they were actually written by Loki, and are fulfilled due to his meddling - which will unfortunately lead to Ragnarok.
Is this before or after Chuck Norris, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Raptor Jesus have a battle royale?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Ok, in the first place, nothing in the canons of science requires me to be gracious about experimental results I don't like. But more importantly, where do you get the conclusion that I was defeated? Ok, a hypothesis was disconfirmed, big deal. In a scenario that's win-win for me, by construction there is no defeat even if the win I get isn't the win I predicted.
Alright, if you're looking at this in strictly scientific method terms, you're quite right. You aren't required to be gracious, though it's sort of implicit that you should be, since part of science is being wrong a lot, so a good scientist ought to become accustomed to it, I would think.
As for the scenario being a win-win, you might as well run a race, finish second place, and say, "Hey, second place is pretty darn good, I haven't lost anything." It's accurate, from a certain outlook...but I don't really think you have that sort of outlook, or at least probably not as regards religion. That's a totally subjective personal interpretation, though.
quote:Indeed, but the good old custom of cutting someone dead is not practiced by merely ignoring them. For it to have its proper effect as social sanction, there must be no doubt that you have registered the presence of the offender and are deliberately dropping him from your attention. If I just wanted to ignore people I'd go get some work done.
Wait, so you think your comments to Ron Lambert serve some sort of 'social sanction' purpose? Really? Because I'll tell you what, it reads a helluva lot more like personal gratification than an effort to better society. Which is fine, just cop to it. Rather like you were insisting kmbboots ought to:)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:As for the scenario being a win-win, you might as well run a race, finish second place, and say, "Hey, second place is pretty darn good, I haven't lost anything." It's accurate, from a certain outlook...but I don't really think you have that sort of outlook, or at least probably not as regards religion. That's a totally subjective personal interpretation, though.
Um, you do remember that actual money changed hands here, yes? When irrational people give up some of their power because I manipulated their irrational beliefs, I count that as a win, thanks kindly. If I'm left with a bit of egg on my face, pff, what do I care? Follow the money. The minor, personal gratification of having a hypothesis confirmed is nothing.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Rakeesh: I think an interesting question is what gratification you get out of trying to convince KoM that he came in second place.
What difference to you is it if he feels like he made a good deal? Sounds a lot like sour grapes on your part.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Rakeesh: I think an interesting question is what gratification you get out of trying to convince KoM that he came in second place.
What difference to you is it if he feels like he made a good deal? Sounds a lot like sour grapes on your part.
I'm puzzled. In what way would that be "sour grapes" on Rakeesh's part?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Because KoM seems satisfied with the outcome, and Rakeesh keeps trying to convince him that he isn't.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
The fable that that expression makes reference to isn't about trying to convince another person of anything.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:As for the scenario being a win-win, you might as well run a race, finish second place, and say, "Hey, second place is pretty darn good, I haven't lost anything." It's accurate, from a certain outlook...but I don't really think you have that sort of outlook, or at least probably not as regards religion. That's a totally subjective personal interpretation, though.
Um, you do remember that actual money changed hands here, yes? When irrational people give up some of their power because I manipulated their irrational beliefs, I count that as a win, thanks kindly. If I'm left with a bit of egg on my face, pff, what do I care? Follow the money. The minor, personal gratification of having a hypothesis confirmed is nothing.
You do get that giving up power is a good thing in this situation, right? That I am glad to have made the donation?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, but it's not necessary for you to lose by your standards. The question is whether I win by mine.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: The fable that that expression makes reference to isn't about trying to convince another person of anything.
It's about Rakeesh only being happy if he can believe that KoM didn't actually get anything of value.
Look, it's not a perfect analogy, and if you really want to say that I used it wrong, ironic as that might be, I'll concede.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Where is the irony in my saying that you used it wrong?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Now you're just begging the question. I think I smell crocodile tears.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Um, you do remember that actual money changed hands here, yes? When irrational people give up some of their power because I manipulated their irrational beliefs, I count that as a win, thanks kindly. If I'm left with a bit of egg on my face, pff, what do I care? Follow the money. The minor, personal gratification of having a hypothesis confirmed is nothing.
Well, as long as you're copping to the egg on your face, that's fine. But I wonder, does kmbboots think she has 'given up some of her power'? I suspect not. In fact, I rather think she probably feels empowered by the experience of being charitable. I certainly do.
If the minor, personal gratification was nothing, why was that what motivated your challenge in the first place? Because if it was all about the power, why hasn't this come up before in one of your many arguments with kmbboots about religion? The context the challenge came up in was you trying to one-up her. You 'zinged' her by enticing her to do something that actually she was happy to do anyway, and then gloated about it.
*shrug* Your behavior really does make me think the benefit to society was incidental rather than primarily intentional. And anyway...if your behavior is about benefiting society, as you so frequently claim, isn't there some money burning a hole in your pocket, or some time in your weeks, that could be better spent doing some real, effective good in the fight against dumb theists?
As opposed to just prodding on the Internet, I mean. We all recognize the heroic accomplishments such work has achieved, but really, isn't it covered already?
quote:What difference to you is it if he feels like he made a good deal? Sounds a lot like sour grapes on your part.
For me, it's the amusement garnered by poking at someone who so consistently claims to be acting for the communal good when his behavior tells a different story, particularly the parts where he chastises theists for actually doing communal good but being counterbalanced by the awful sickness of their beliefs on society.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I have never claimed that I act for the good of society. I have only claimed that theists do not do so, to the extent that their own teachings mandate.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You've never claimed that your behavior towards theists was not at least partially intended to serve some good beyond your own amusement?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, fair enough; and it worked, too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wasn't calling into question the ends, but the means. If you say your entire participation in this thread here was geared into maneuvering kmbboots into a 'loss of power', well, there's really not much I can say to that except that it doesn't appear very likely.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As I noted - several times - exposing hypocrisy would have been fine too. When I say there were two possible outcomes and I was fine with either one, just what is your problem?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes, but it's not necessary for you to lose by your standards. The question is whether I win by mine.
Boy I want this to be 'the question' cause I win cause I think I won is so lol
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:As I noted - several times - exposing hypocrisy would have been fine too. When I say there were two possible outcomes and I was fine with either one, just what is your problem?
If this were the only thing you had said - I'm not just talking about this thread now, to be clear - I wouldn't have a problem. But to sum up, my problem can be posed to you much the same way one of your problems was posed to kmbboots: you claim, sometimes, to be working towards some public good. If that is the case, why the penny-ante tactics? Surely there are better, more effective ways to thwart theists in the world than poking at them on an Internet discussion forum.
Seeing as how you do not spend the time you spend here doing those other things, then, I can challenge your publicly claimed intent on precisely the same grounds you challenged kmbboots. Unfortunately there isn't an easy test I could devise to do so, though, as you did. It does save me the trouble of doing so, losing the point, and then claiming victory.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
No, you seem to be claiming victory without even posing a challenge.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: If you weren't a regular this would qualify as spam.
If things were different, they wouldn't be the same!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's not an especially damning charge since I've admitted I can't come up with such a test. I'm open to a suggestion, though, if you've got any instead of pithy one-liner posts.
As for victory, though, I suppose I am. Though why you'd be critical of that in defense of KoM, I don't know-he gloated about being wrong. But as for my motive, it'd be nice to have another discussion with the guy, I think, as I did a couple of weeks ago, but not if I have to wade through crowing masquerading as altruism to do it.
In the interest of honesty, though, that's my motive now. At many points in the past it has been simple satisfaction. I see nothing wrong with admitting it, though, and it continually baffles me why KoM does.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hey, guys. Everybody won here.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Not me. I just read this thread.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: But to sum up, my problem can be posed to you much the same way one of your problems was posed to kmbboots: you claim, sometimes, to be working towards some public good. If that is the case, why the penny-ante tactics?
Posting on Hatcrack is what I do when I'm procrastinating on real work. So within the constraint of having only a finite amount of self-discipline, forum posts may quite often be my best option. Then, in addition to that, although the benefit may be small, the cost is also very small; the ratio may not be that bad.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Hey, guys. Everybody won here.
++
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
KOM, Are you willing to accept a challenge yourself.
I will pay you US$20 if you will refrain from posting anything derogatory about religion or religious people for the next 30 days.
If you would like, I'm willing to give the $20 dollars to a fair arbiter (by mutual agreement) now via paypal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Posting on Hatcrack is what I do when I'm procrastinating on real work. So within the constraint of having only a finite amount of self-discipline, forum posts may quite often be my best option. Then, in addition to that, although the benefit may be small, the cost is also very small; the ratio may not be that bad.
Well, no, the cost isn't actually very small. You could be doing so much more, after all. Time being ultimately the most precious resource, the cost could be considered to be quite high.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
By which logic none of us should be posting on Hatrack at all.
Any egg on KOM's face from Kate's stepping up to his challenge has been more than wiped off by his patient tolerance of the (non-Kate) harping on it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm tempted to offset part of that $20 out of principle.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hell, I won't even offset it. I would straight-up match it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Well, no, the cost isn't actually very small. You could be doing so much more, after all. Time being ultimately the most precious resource, the cost could be considered to be quite high.
In principle, yes. But again: I have only so much willpower. At this very moment I ought to be working on my talk for Saturday; do you see me doing so? Now, it's possible that if I strained myself to the utmost, I could find just a bit more self-discipline; but I and not you must be the judge of that. Christians, on the other hand, have an external standard given by the theoretical founder of their faith; since the standard is written down and objective, anyone can judge by it. "Doing one's best" can only be judged by the one involved; "Giving all one's worldly goods" is easily measurable by anyone.
quote:KoM, are you willing to accept a challenge yourself?
I will pay you US$20 if you will refrain from posting anything derogatory about religion or religious people for the next 30 days.
Ok, I accept your challenge. Thirty days takes us to (and including) June 19th, right? However, perhaps you could define your terms a bit more precisely. Is it derogatory to say that there is no good evidence for a given claim, and that the claimant must therefore be fooling herself? Because if so, you're effectively challenging me to refrain from debating religion at all. Which is ok too, as long as it's clear.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't know that I am entirely comfortable with, even voluntarily, restricting conversation beyond the TOS or the judgment of the moderator.
Or could be I would just miss it. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't know that I am entirely comfortable with, even voluntarily, restricting conversation beyond the TOS or the judgment of the moderator.
I think that everybody should voluntarily restrict what they say beyond the TOS or the judgment of the moderator.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:By which logic none of us should be posting on Hatrack at all.
Which is why I think such arguments are very strange when posted on an Internet discussion forum.
quote:Any egg on KOM's face from Kate's stepping up to his challenge has been more than wiped off by his patient tolerance of the (non-Kate) harping on it.
Yeah, he's a peach:)
quote:In principle, yes. But again: I have only so much willpower. At this very moment I ought to be working on my talk for Saturday; do you see me doing so? Now, it's possible that if I strained myself to the utmost, I could find just a bit more self-discipline; but I and not you must be the judge of that. Christians, on the other hand, have an external standard given by the theoretical founder of their faith; since the standard is written down and objective, anyone can judge by it. "Doing one's best" can only be judged by the one involved; "Giving all one's worldly goods" is easily measurable by anyone.
Ahh, so you're still going by the 'everyone giving away all their worldly goods' standard, eh? You've already had one scriptural response to that that I note without surprise you've glossed over. Put another way, you might at least consider considering that the standard is not exactly what you appear to be suggesting it is, as flattering to your vanity as your current interpretation is. After all, why pick a different interpretation when the current one lets you crow?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I haven't really noticed "crowing". And I am not sure we can fault KoM for using what I quoted; I did not put it in context. And he asked for $100 which, while non-negligible is not exactly all my worldly goods.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Ahh, so you're still going by the 'everyone giving away all their worldly goods' standard, eh? You've already had one scriptural response to that that I note without surprise you've glossed over.
If there was a scriptural response, I missed it. I did see the claim that the words applied only to that specific context and person; this is an interpretation not obvious from the scripture, and which sounds quite a bit like an excuse.
ETA: Incidentally, I will not consider the 30-day period to have started until the terms are fully clarified and agreed to.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QUOTE]If there was a scriptural response, I missed it. I did see the claim that the words applied only to that specific context and person; this is an interpretation not obvious from the scripture, and which sounds quite a bit like an excuse.
It is an interpretation that is very obvious from the scripture -- the man asks what should I do and Jesus answers him. It isn't his first answer either, he only gets to it after the man tells him that he's already doing all the things Jesus suggests first.
Edit: Which is not to say that extrapolating from that to general advice is not also a possible interpretation, but it's not the literal one.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If there was a scriptural response, I missed it. I did see the claim that the words applied only to that specific context and person; this is an interpretation not obvious from the scripture, and which sounds quite a bit like an excuse.
It sounds more like an excuse the less you're aware of the context.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I note that, to the extent any Christians exist who interpreted the verse correctly, you would never hear of them, because they would not be posting on the Internets. Consequently there's rather a strong selection bias in any interpretational tradition one might point to. This is, of course, a natural consequence of setting up impossible targets.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don't think you get to define "correctly" here.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Ok, I accept your challenge. Thirty days takes us to (and including) June 19th, right? However, perhaps you could define your terms a bit more precisely. Is it derogatory to say that there is no good evidence for a given claim, and that the claimant must therefore be fooling herself? Because if so, you're effectively challenging me to refrain from debating religion at all. Which is ok too, as long as it's clear.
Yes it is derogatory to tell someone they must be fooling themselves. Whether or not its derogatory to say there is no good evidence for a given claim depends to a large extent on how its said. I think it would be most unambiguous if we just went with refraining from all religious debates for 30 days.
Now we just need to agree on an arbiter, and I'll send them the money.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
All of Paul's letters are written to specific churches, yet Christians don't disregard those teachings on the basis that they are only for "someone else."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
err...Yes some of them do. Or rather, they regard them as reflections of the time and place of the writing, and not as absolute teachings. For example, Red Letter Christians. That what I was when I was Christian, although we didn't have a fancy name for it then.
---
As a kind of amusing aside, regarding what Ron said earlier about Revelation being Jesus's direct inspiration while the Gospels where just people writing down what they thought Jesus said, I had a similar experience when talking about theology with protestants at an ecumenical Christian leadership conference. A couple of the central tenets of protestantism are incompatible with red letter christianity (for example salvation from faith alone vs. Matthew 25). I was maybe 14 at the time and I couldn't understand how they could discount what Jesus said in favor of what Paul wrote. They're take was very similar, that the Gospels were bystander accounts, while the Epistles were direct from God. That was a really bizarre conversation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: All of Paul's letters are written to specific churches, yet Christians don't disregard those teachings on the basis that they are only for "someone else."
Many Christians do in fact disregard many parts of Paul's letters using that exact reasoning.
When a religious leader speaks to specific audience, its completely rational to presume some of what is said will have general applicability and some will be applicable only to that particular audience. As long as people are making that distinction based on the context of the particular text and the broader context of their religion, why would it be a problem.
When looking at the scripture in question, it is evident from the context that this admonition was directed at a particular individual. The same admonition is not repeated in any other context within either the New or Old Testament, where as general admonitions to aiding the poor are repeated through out the scriptures.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I quoted nothing. Kmb quoted the verse, approvingly, as something that ought to guide the actions of Christians.
You're right. My bad.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The same admonition is not repeated in any other context within either the New or Old Testament, where as general admonitions to aiding the poor are repeated through out the scriptures.
It's repeated almost verbatim in Luke, as an address to a large audience. The phrasing is slightly different though- the word meaning "as much as" or "the extent of" (ie: all) isn't there. So we get, in English, "sell what you have" rather than "sell all that you have" as in Mark.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I was maybe 14 at the time and I couldn't understand how they could discount what Jesus said in favor of what Paul wrote. Their take was very similar, that the Gospels were bystander accounts, while the Epistles were direct from God. That was a really bizarre conversation.
I find that very odd.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Ok, I accept your challenge. Thirty days takes us to (and including) June 19th, right? However, perhaps you could define your terms a bit more precisely. Is it derogatory to say that there is no good evidence for a given claim, and that the claimant must therefore be fooling herself? Because if so, you're effectively challenging me to refrain from debating religion at all. Which is ok too, as long as it's clear.
Yes it is derogatory to tell someone they must be fooling themselves. Whether or not its derogatory to say there is no good evidence for a given claim depends to a large extent on how its said. I think it would be most unambiguous if we just went with refraining from all religious debates for 30 days.
Now we just need to agree on an arbiter, and I'll send them the money.
No worries, you can be the arbiter since the terms have now been rather simplified.
Continuing the discussion of what is derogatory or not, if I say to the one, "Your evidence would not convince you if you did not wish to be convinced", is that not the same as telling them they are fooling themselves? The one must follow from the other even if it is not said explicitly. And yet I do not see how I can discuss religion without saying this in one form or another; this is the core of my disagreement with theists.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote: I quoted nothing. Kmb quoted the verse, approvingly, as something that ought to guide the actions of Christians.
You're right. My bad.
Of course I'm right. I'm always right. I keep telling you people this, and you don't believe me. It's very frustrating. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Awww...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Continuing the discussion of what is derogatory or not, if I say to the one, "Your evidence would not convince you if you did not wish to be convinced", is that not the same as telling them they are fooling themselves? The one must follow from the other even if it is not said explicitly. And yet I do not see how I can discuss religion without saying this in one form or another; this is the core of my disagreement with theists.
You are right, both statements are derogatory, but there is a civil alternative. You could simply say "Your evidence is not objectively compelling." It conveys the essence of your argument without making any insulting judgements about why the other person finds it compelling. Unless, of course, the essence of your argument is not about the nature of the evidence but the nature of the person making it. In which case, you're right it can't be said in any non derogatory way. If that's your argument, it violates the spirit if not the letter of the hatrack user agreement.
And you are fooling yourself or socially inept if you can't see the difference between insulting someone and making a claim from which some derogatory inference might logically follow.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
BTW, KOM, Since you are willing to proceed without an arbiter. I'll start counting tomorrow morning. If you make it to June 20 without participating in a religious debate, I'll send you $20.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, you're on.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is going to be a long month.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It is going to be a long month.
I'm quite looking forward to it. I figure I win either way. Sorry if you see it as a downside kate. I'll happily discuss religion with for the next 30 days if it helps.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM doesn't really bother me as much as some others. At least his anger at religion is somewhat intelligently focused instead of just being angry flailing about.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Less KoM just means that the rest of us atheists need to step up our game.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Like I said, long month. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Drat. It's going to be hard to step up my game while in Salt Lake City. I'd rather just pay a KoM offset.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
What I'm really looking forward to is KoM's clever ways to stay within the rules of the contest and still make good arguments.
Sometimes you get stuck in a rut, and you need some artificial constraints to make you stretch your legs.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
"Not derogatory" I might have been able to game, but "don't participate in religious discussion" seems rather more difficult. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Actually, it seems that that would be much easier.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
When you get right down to it, very little of the Bible was given to "You all, everybody." It would be consistent to ignore almost all of it as being directed to people who are not us.
What I find most frustrating is that many people simply use that as an excuse to pick and choose the parts they want to follow, the parts that they expect others to follow, and the inconvenient bits that are "obviously" for someone else and don't apply.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Haha. Wow, you very nearly summed up my views. A tad more generalized, maybe:
"What I find most frustrating is that many people [snip] pick and choose the parts they want to follow, the parts that they expect others to follow, and the inconvenient bits that are "obviously" for someone else and don't apply.
ETA: And I can understand why they do it. There are inconsistencies and contradictions. You would lose your mind if you didn't do this, if you tried to internalize it as one coherent message. The people that I've met that state that there are aware of this picking and choosing, that the picking and choosing comes from the ethics and morals that they've developed independent from the Bible, are the ones that I can have nice, deep, mutually beneficial discussions with.
Those that state that it's The Truth, that it's all coherent, that it's infallible...I have trouble having a decent discussion with them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'll take that one step further -- I find it frustrating that people believe the wrong things. Which, of course, means "different than me". Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Drat. It's going to be hard to step up my game while in Salt Lake City. I'd rather just pay a KoM offset.
Maybe there should be an auction.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Let's not make this easy. Maybe someone should start a Bible study thread?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I hope this means I get a field promotion.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote: I quoted nothing. Kmb quoted the verse, approvingly, as something that ought to guide the actions of Christians.
You're right. My bad.
Of course I'm right. I'm always right. I keep telling you people this, and you don't believe me. It's very frustrating.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)