OK. I’ll go with choice A, except that you left out arrogant.
I really don’t think that Lolo knows what he means when he uses the term “impressed”. He’s been asked more than once to define it but hasn’t yet. I think what he is really trying to ask is “Do you really believe in this Jesus Christ, Son of God stuff?” Many of us have said that while we don’t believe the religous claims regarding Jesus we are still impressed by his impact on humanity. This seems to be a concept that Lolo just can’t grasp.
Every year when Time’s Man-of-the-Year award comes out I see this same thing. There is always someone, perhaps our own Lolo, who writes in and says “So-and-so can’t be Man-of-the-Year! Look at all the bad things he’s done.” Some just seem to be unable to grasp the concept that influence and morality are not the same thing much like Lolo can’t understand that being impressed by someone isn’t the same thing as believing in him.
If we could only nail down what “impressed” means to you, we’d could judge the validity of this analogy.
Were it I talking, I’d have no problems with the above conversation. I’m not impressed with the type of entertainment offered by the WWF, or with the belief that the storylines are real and the action uncoreographed.
But I am undeniably impressed with the marketing, the fan base developed, the income generated, and so forth.
So… “I’m not impressed with the WWF” may be true, or not, depending on what the context is.
Once again - if this entire thread is simply a statement of your subjective view, with no objective criteria, then there’s not much of a debate, is there?
P1: He had the opportunity to be king or President-for-Life and instead rather specifically stepped down to keep electoral democracy alive, that was cool
P2: He was a pretty good general, look at what he did with so little to work with. And that Valley Forge stuff is apparently pretty real…you gotta admire someone who can inspire soldiers to stay in service when their toes are freezing off in the wintertime
OP: I don’t see anything to be impressed by, because I don’t believe that cherry tree “I cannot tell a lie” bullshit, and c’mon, no one could throw a silver dollar across the Delaware River or stand up in a rowboat on that kind of current. <yawn>
P1: Huh? What’s that patriotic fairy-tale shit got to do with anything? Hey, look at his political career…
P2: Who said anything about cherry trees? He guided a young nation, did a lot of things right and nothing notably wrong, and with no role models I might add…
OP: I’m not impressed. I know I’m supposed to believe he’s the Father of Our Country, but I think he was just one guy among many, and they were all just ordinary social and political leaders, I don’t believe he is the Father of Our Country so like I’m really not impressed. I guess if I believed that he never told a lie ever in his life, I might be impressed, but why should I believe that flag-waving jingoistic crap? Sorry, unimpressed!
Say, Libertarian, I’ve been meaning to ask you something:
You know that Contemporary Christian song “He’s My Son”, by Mark Shultz? The one where he’s making this long prayer that his son, who is stricken with some horrible disease, will get better? Well, on the very last 4 lines of the song, he repeats the refrain with some of the words omitted, and he turns the reverb way up and lowers his voice. I detected what I thought was a deliberate “double meaning” in the way those last 4 lines were sung. (Imagine they’re being sung by a very different “Father” about His Son.)
Did you notice that as well? Was this intentional, on Mark Shultz’s part?
I’m not Lib., but yeah, Tracer, I think it was intentional. George Strait’s song about being and raising a son does precisely the same thing – and the analogies between what a (human) father feels and what Jesus uses the metaphor of Father feels are, I believe, quite effective in showing the Christian POV.
Lolo, I can understand quite fully your feeling that some dude who is alleged to have said and done stuff, some of which flies in the face of everyday experience, and has a bunch of people running around saying apparently-absurd things about him today, might not impress you.
But did you intend any grounds for debate. I’m impressed by him because he defined a humanistic/religious stance with which I agree and told effective stories that any dolt can see the point to in order to make his points, because he gave his life for what he believed in, and because, according to the unanimous consensus of those in a position to know, he somehow conquered death and in doing so provided me with something precious.
You need not believe the last point; it could easily be
“fairy tale.” But the first two make him a significant figure on anybody’s interpretation of “impressive figures,” IMHO at least.
I’d appreciate a response to that viewpoint – telling me why, IYHO, I’m wrong. I respect your right not to be impressed – but reiterating it will not explain to me why my being impressed is wrong by your viewpoint.
You need not log onto the Internet to tell yourself what you already know – you’re not impressed. The point to these fora is to have intelligent discussions and learn from each other – I’m prepared to listen respectfully to your POV if you’ll bother saying something more than “I’m not impressed; it all sounds like fairy tales to me” and an analogy to an overtly staged form of entertainment (which is valid as a staged form of entertainment, BTW; my foster son and I used to enjoy sitting around trying to see past the hype and figure out what the Rock was going to come up with next, and what the McMahon family would counter it with. :))
Lolo, as you have perhaps noticed, the posters here are not fond of people who prefer to treat their opinions as unquestionable rather than subject for debate, nor do they like people who post just to “stir things up”. The latter is considered “trolling” and jerkish, and the number one rule of this message board is “don’t be a jerk.” Violating that one can get you banned.
I am pretty close to locking this thread since you have said you do not intend to debate, and am only leaving in open due to the people still gamely trying to form a debate out of this.
However, irritating though he may be, Neurotik, references to Lolo’s “feeble intellect” are inappropriate in this forum.
Ah, good. It’s good to know I wasn’t imagining it.
Now, for a couple of other comments I noticed earlier in the thread, which I have a sudden urge to put in my 2 cents about:
Mangetout wrote:
Can I find Hootin’ Hollerin’ Christians on the toy store shelves next to Hungry Hungry Hippos, by any chance?
Lest y’all think that the New Testament is one big nicey-nicey Kum-ba-ya bed of roses, free of killing and hate and sexism, I invite you to take the Betty Bowers “What Did Jesus Say?” Bible Quiz.
Miseo has three connotations[sup]1[/sup] in the New Testament: (1) an unjustifiably malicious feeling of animosity, e.g., “I hate niggers and Jews” ; (2) a righteous feeling of aversion from wrongdoing or evil, e.g., “I hate that I was so cruel to her” ; and (3) a relative preference for one thing over another, e.g., “I hate that I ordered fish now that I see they have steak”.
Lest you roll your eyes and go, “hate is hate,” remember that we’re talking Greek here. While hate itself is a rather monolithic term in English, signifying almost entirely the first definition of miseo, there are English words that have diverse (and even opposite!) meanings in various contexts, such as “sanction”, which can mean either approval or punishment.[sup]2[/sup]
Context, of course, is everything. At least for moral evaluation. Since we cannot know the unabridged context of any event, we have to make guesses. The verse that Betty Bowers lifts from Luke 14 is a snapshot of one of Jesus’s conversations with the Pharisees.[sup]3[/sup] Keep in mind that these are the snakes and vipers who travel the ends of the earth to find one convert and then make him twice the son of hell they are themselves.[sup]4[/sup]
Based on the evidence that Jesus dearly loved his mother, remembering, for example, to place her in the capable and loving care of one of his disciples, even as He was being tortured to death[sup]5[/sup], not to mention his reiteration of the commandment to honor your father and mother[sup]6[/sup], and based on the context of the whole chapter, with its parables about feasts and weddings and invitations and making plans, it makes sense to me that Jesus meant miseo as in number 3. He was telling the Pharisess that they must turn away from everything else that they treasure and treasure Him.
This theme was quite common throughout Jesus’s ministry. Put Him first, and then every good thing will be given to you. The same usage is found in other versus, such as John 12:25, “The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.”[sup]7[/sup] You must give up your life in order to save it.
1 Thessalonians 2:15
Jesus didn’t say this.[sup]8[/sup]
Matthew 10:34
The inclusion of this one surprised me, since only the most disingenuous argument would present this as anything but the drawing of a dichotomy. The sword He brings is not for fighting battles, but for dividing things in two: the righteous from the evil, as the rest of the chapter makes crystal clear.[sup]9[/sup] (You’ll also find more of the giving up family stuff here.)
With respect to using swords in battles, Jesus ordered His own disciple to put his sword away, declaring, “Put your sword back in its place for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”[sup]10[/sup]
Matthew 13:10-14
I dunno. Let’s give Betty the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the King James English left her a bit bewildered. I left the quote cut off, the same as she did. Jesus went on to explain the parable that He had just given them in great detail.[sup]11[/sup] It certainly makes sense to me that a person will find whatever understanding he wishes to find (if any) in all of Jesus’s parables. Many of you will recall the fairly recent discussions about the prodigal son and the radically different ways we interpreted the story.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
Jesus didn’t say this either.[sup]12[/sup]
Matthew 19:29
We already covered this in some detail. Betty is reaching for tautologies.
1 Timothy 2:9&12
[…sigh…]
There are four Gospels that record the words of Jesus. I am amazed that Betty, in the course of her research, failed to discern this. The above was not said by Jesus. In fact, Jesus treated women with great respect, and they had prominent roles in His life and ministry. From the Samaritan woman who gave Him water at the well[sup]13[/sup], to the woman He defended from those who had accused her of adultery[sup]14[/sup], to the women who discovered His empty tomb becoming the first humans to know of His Resurrection[sup]15[/sup], and many in between — women were among Jesus’s most loyal and passionate followers.
What truly disappoints me about Betty, though, was her inclusion here of Matthew 24:19[sup]16[/sup], “How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!” Well, duh. He is speaking in the whole chapter[sup]17[/sup] about the end of the world, and its great calamities: “For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now–and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.”
I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to understand that such conditions might be especially hard on pregnant women. Clearly, Jesus wasn’t condemning pregnant women, but lamenting their coming plight. I hate to say this, but I believe that Betty was being intellectually dishonest here, or else incredibly ignorant.
In fact, I’m stopping here, because I think the pattern she is using has been established. I followed it the rest of the way through, and it was just more of the same. Pauline expressions attributed to Jesus. Single versus lifted out of context and supplied with unintended meaning by her introductory editorial remarks. In fact, she became so predictable that, even without any knowledge of Jesus’s ministry, you realized after about question number 2 that the thing to do was pick the one she had twisted into a mean and nasty misinterpretation.
I find her understanding of scripture to be Neanderthal at best, and deliberately fraudulent at worst. I don’t believe I’ve seen the Bible so twisted since that time I watched Jimmy Swaggart on TV.
Tracer, my friend, you are way above disseminating that sort of Jack Chick material, at least without one heck of a disclaimer.
The existence of definition (3) for “miseo” is not as well-settled as that. I’ve yet to see “miseo” translated as anything resembling “love less than” in any Greek dictionary or lexicon that wasn’t written as a tool of New Testament scholarship by/for Christians. Furthermore, the other 40 occurrences of “miseo” in the New Testament clearly mean “hate,” not merely “love less.” Until the Living Bible, as far as I know, every English translation of the New Testament translated “miseo” as “hate” all 41 times it occurred (including Luke 14, as we all know).
Incidentally, that link you provided to the miseo entry in “Vine’s Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words” doesn’t work – it results in a 404 error.
True, and here, it is misleading that Betty Bowers called her Bible Quiz “What Did Jesus Say?”. A year or two ago, it wasn’t called “What Did Jesus Say?”, it was just her New Testament “Bible Quiz.”
I do wish that she hadn’t renamed her quiz, and plastererd the words “What Did Jesus Say?” on every darn page. (Then your objection would not have the merit it does, and I’d earn extra Argument Points .) Ya gotta admit, even if Jesus didn’t say it, 1 Thessalonians is in the New Testament. (And my point in bringing up the Betty Bowers Bible Quiz was not that Jesus gave some nasty instructions, but that the New Testament gives some nasty instructions.)
Uh huh. And I suppose that’s why Matthew 10:36 says that “a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.” [Emphasis mine]
Nope. But it’s still in the New Testament.
Sounds more to me like she’s reaching for a well-established pattern. Jesus says over, and over, and over again that you have to give up everything – including your own family, if they don’t Believe – and follow Him.
Yes, but … darn it … it’s still in the New Testament.
Now you’re the one who missed something. The sentence in Betty’s Bible Quiz that corresponds with Matthew 24:19 was: “But don’t any of you fertile dames get smug because the Apocalypse is going to be especially rough on pregnant women.”
Betty did not say that Jesus said “God and I are going to go out of our way to make the Apocalypse especially rough on pregnant women, so there,” or anything similar.
versus Godzilla?
I don’t think that all, or even most, of her introductory editorial remarks added unintended meaning to the passages she chose.
Although I certainly agree that she lifted Matthew 10:21 out of context.
Betty Bowers exaggerates her mock-Christianity from time to time (primarily for shock value), and she’s careless in attributing quotes “to Jesus” which in fact were in non-Gospel New Testament books – but she hardly compares to the vile putrescence that is Jack T. Chick.
Applause and kudos to tracer and Libertarian for an excellent debate.
Shame it took three pages in this thread to get to. Others interested in lessons on how to form debatable assertions, and discuss same, would benefit from close study.
A debate?!
Oh dear!
I hadn’t meant to let this thread drift that far from the OP!
Here, lemme try to fix it:
(ahem)
Of course you’re not impressed by Jesus, Lolo! Neither am I! I mean, sure, He can turn water into wine and multiply loaves & fishes, but can He transform into a giant humanoid robot? Has He ever wielded a light saber? Does He have even one built-in blaster cannon? Huh? And sure, he can cast out demons, but can he blow them away with a shotgun, like in DOOM?
And walking on water? Sheesh. That scene didn’t even look convincing. I’ve seen better special effects in a Roger Corman movie!
There is hardly anything more “settled” than scriptural scholarship, and especially Strongs and Vines. I don’t know whether you realize it, but these aren’t street preachers we’re talking about here. These are people like my former friend, whom we called “The Reverend Doctor Doctor”, because he is an ordained minister who holds two doctorate degrees, one in English from the University of Chicago, and one in theology from Harvard.
Lest you cry “Verecundiam!”, let me remind you that an appeal to authority is not a fallacy when refering to someone who is an authority on the subject under debate.[sup]1[/sup] Scholarship in this area has been intense for nearly two thousand years, even through the Dark Ages.[sup]2[/sup] You may claim that Christian scholars bring a bias to their work, but so what? Where are the dissenters who claim mistranslations of whatever the Christian scholars had at hand?
You will recall that that is the very circumstand under which I converted. I translated John for myself, setting out to determine whether it was being somehow secretly translated with a bias that would support the preconceptions of writers of extant translations. Not only did I find that their translations were accurate, I found that they were conservative! And miseo is a perfect example. Though it does not always mean “hate” in the sense of number 1, they translated it as “hate” all the same.
Well, you haven’t seen it translted as “love less than” in any Greek dictionary that was written as a tool of New Testament scholarship by/for Christians. Miseo is translated as hate. Period. If that weren’t so, we wouldn’t be having this controversy over it.
No, they don’t. (And I will allow the 40, despite that all 41 are derived from misos.)
John 12:25, for example, uses the “love less than” sense of miseo: “The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.” Do you seriously believe that, despite all contextual evidence to the contrary, Jesus intended that a man hate the life God gave him in the same sense that Fred Phelps hates fags?
Speaking of Phelps, his entire ministry is built around precisely the same twisted meaning that Betty Bowers has given to this word with indiscriminate abandon. Phelps declares that because God hates in the same manner that Hitler did, we all should. (I can’t link his site right now; it appears to be down, but you know how to get to it.)
I insist that you acknowledge the profound difference between hating a man because he is black or because he loves other men, and hating that you ordered fries instead of onion rings. If you won’t acknowledge this, our debate is futile.
The Living Bible is not a translation; it is a paraphrase, as it clearly states in its Introduction.
And yes, of course it is translated as hate, because that’s the English equivalent of the word. But words have connotations and context. Is a woman who looks at a dress and goes, “Yuck, I hate it,” in the same moral category, as far as you are concerned, as Stalin?
Yes, I notice now that it creates a temp directory which is likely purged after some time, so I won’t be giving those cites here. But quite obviously, you know how to go to the Blue Letter Bible[sup]4[/sup] website and find your way around.
Well then, I smell an agenda. What is the purpose of changing its name anyway? There is no a priori reason for atheists to ridicule Jesus, as there are many who find his moral teachings to be compatible with their own.[sup]5[/sup]
Maybe yes, maybe no. You can’t just lift something out of the context of its culture and call it nasty.
In a more enlightened future world, it is entirely possible that many of our practices that we condone will be looked upon as savage. It is all a matter of culture. Even things that we defend as cornerstones of our civilization might come to be regarded as part of earth’s barbaric history: capital punishment, for example, or imprisonment of people for sodomy or pot smoking, or testing of scientific theories on animals, or even the whole notion of involuntary servitude to arbitrary governments.
I wouldn’t presume to defend Paul, but I believe that his requirements for men were as weird and strict as his requirements for women. And even with that, he never advised that his rules be applied universally to all women, but merely women who chose to come to his churches. Paul himself recognized cultural differences[sup]6[/sup], and in the verses cited by Betty, he spoke of what he does, not what others should do.
Evil is the enemy of God. If you choose to worship God, then your enemies are everywhere that evil is, even if that means members of your own household.
Y’know, if Jesus had not drawn this dichotomy consistently, our debate might quite likely be along the lines of “Well, why did Jesus say that God hates evil, and yet say nothing about the evil that might be in a man’s own house?” If a man has determined a priori that something stinks in his view, nothing will stop him from sniffing something out.
Op Cit.
Not exactly. The “if they don’t believe” is gratuitous. You must give up your own family whether they believe or not. The issue is of a private moral journey (your own) and of a priority set (God). You misunderstand if you think giving up your family means you will lose them. On the contrary, the only way to have your family is to give them up. This is how God works. He wants you to put Him first-and-only in your priorities. When you’ve done so, He doesn’t then destroy the tings you gave up; rather, He returns them to you in great abundance and purity and more besides.
It is simply a matter of placing your faith, trust, and reliance in Him, rather than in the atoms. As Jesus teaches: “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”[sup]7[/sup]
And where in the passage did Jesus intimate in even the minutest degree that fertile dames would be at all smug? Since when has concern over someone’s distress been construed as a mockery of the sort implied by Betty? The Apocalypse will be quite rough on everyone, what with people praying for mountains to fall on them and all. (Already cited.)
Well, I disagree. And let me give you some examples of what I think she did.
What do the American Atheists say?[sup]8[/sup]
Muslims are peace-loving people whom atheists admire.
Muslims spread terror, and America should unify against them instead of against athiests.
Answer: Number 2 — ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! IN WAKE OF ISLAMIC TERROR, TIME TO UNIFY NATION, NOT ATTACK THOSE WHO QUESTION, REJECT RELIGION SAY ATHEISTS
Atheists defend civil rights for everyone.
Atheists defend civil rights for nonbelievers only, and everyone else be damned.
Answer: Number 2 — American Atheists is a nationwide movement defending civil rights for nonbelievers and the separation of state and church.
Atheists are tolerant of everyone, accepting the validity of beliefs others hold that they might not share.
Atheists dogmatically accept one and only one worldview — their own. Only atheists can be happy and fulfilled.
Answer: Number 2 — An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.
Atheists are altruistically concerned about their fellow man.
Atheists are out to make a buck and couldn’t give a rat’s ass about anything other than their own accumulation of wealth.
Answer: Number 2 — Grab that checkbook! Get ready to burn the plastic!
Indeed.
I disagree. I think she compares quite nicely. Both spread ignorance. Intentionally and without shame.
Hrm … ya know, Libertarian, if you were to replace each occurrence of “Atheist” in that quiz of yours with “The American Atheist Society,” it would be dead-on accurate!
to say this, but I believe that Betty was being intellectually dishonest here, or else incredibly ignorant.