Ennui Elucidator and Hanover appear to wish for a reinvigoration of scholasticism; a narrow focus on defending the one true faith by any rhetorical means available. — Banno
Outlining a theory that actions are driven by beliefs says nothing about restraining or punishing, or even judging, people by their beliefs. — Janus
No. The Bible was not a universal code and it anticipates the people Israel living in a world with many nations not subject to their local war god's rules for the chosen. That is one of the typical misreadings about the Biblical Israelites - that they wanted everyone to be like them. They didn't. They were special. — Ennui Elucidator
But of course meaning is imputed, as much as discovered. — Banno
At some point you've got to trust the folks that are using that book and asking them what those words actually mean. — Hanover
You both appear to be insisting that those who commit evil after the bible are reading it wrong, while also agreeing that there is no true reading. — Banno
You both appear to be insisting that those who commit evil after the bible are reading it wrong, while also agreeing that there is no true reading. — Banno
The Southern Baptists don't stone people. — Hanover
My daughter saying, "You said 'You shouldn't go there!'" is accurate. What would you say I meant in the first case verses the second? Does the squishiness of meaning preclude our evaluation of what it means? — Ennui Elucidator
Stop conflating the Bible (or the god described therein) being shitty with whether an individual Christian should be excluded from conversations about ethics. Those aren't the same things. — Ennui Elucidator
Special in what way? That everyone owes them obedience? — baker
Anyway, the point is that you're setting yourself up as the epistemic and moral authority over Christians when you expect them to justify their beliefs to you. Why should they submit to you?
doesn't have anything to do with me in particular, nada. — jorndoe
What? — Banno
That we lack a unitary meaning doesn't mean we don't have well developed conventions for how to understand things. — Ennui Elucidator
Special in what way? That everyone owes them obedience?
— baker
No one owed them obedience. It is like you aren't even trying. Read the book. Find textual support for your glib. If you can't, give it up. If you can, produce it. — Ennui Elucidator
Hence, the book does not provide moral guidance so much as rely on it. One has to know what is right in order to read the book in the right way. — Banno
seems the best you can argue is that the bible reinforces a morality you already accept. — Banno
But again, what does that have to do with Lewis and your extension of his neglected argument to summarily writing off Christians without knowing anything about the individual? — Ennui Elucidator
But they refuse to do so. Now what?
— baker
I walk away I suppose. I'm not going to progress to fisticuffs. — Isaac
What use is fairness, when people can live just fine without it?
— baker
Again, you're misconstruing my intent. I never claimed fairness was indispensable.
I'm not entitled to an opinion about what the meaning is to me, what it's value is to me. — Isaac
What characterises a tendency? How do you use actions to evaluate a 'tendency to act as if' on those states? What scope of behaviours does any particular tendency require for its evaluation? And finally - how does the answer to those questions interface with the argument?
The absence of those answers I think interfaces very clearly with the argument - the lack of answers makes it ambiguous how a believer acts as if (stoning is good) based on their worship of a God who in some context of evaluation approves of stoning. It isn't clear how to get from a tendency to act as if God is worthy of worship to a tendency to act as if stoning is justified. — fdrake
A person stops being an individual the moment they use a group term for themselves. — baker
So I shouldn't say that I am American? — Ennui Elucidator
In contrast, I distinctly remember a scene from an old biblical film where a character, played by the young Anthony Hopkins, addresses precisely this issue. Namely, a number of religious people argue that everyone must obey the law as set out by God. While Hopkins' character argues that such is not the case, that outsiders are not subject to that law, and also that insiders cannot force the law upon outsiders.
I thought this was extremely strange, because this is precisely not how Christians go about this matter. — baker
21 And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly. — Matthew 15:21
26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.” — Matthew 15:21
They would if allowed — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.