So the statement “either you believe in the God of the bible or you don’t” doesn’t work, since one’s personal God will be different from another’s.
If you’re saying an individual manufactures his or her own God, then their concept of God is limited to how much they know the bible. This is actually like empirical science, which proclaims that we can only be as knowledgeable of the universe to the extent of what we can observe. Who says science and religion can’t get along?
Well, I could have used parables (the Prodigal Ant, maybe?) instead of analogy, but in this case I think the analogy works fine. It shows how difficult it is to relate to a deity who isn’t human. It also demonstrates God’s challenge in communicating with us, even though He’s all powerful.
You’re not saying it’s possible that prayer is just a waste of time, are you? I’d tell the ants if I knew how.
It’s an instance of bad logic - an invalid syllogism - rather than “not logic”; that would be like saying “saying ‘2 + 2 = 5’ is not mathematics”. If point 2 was “Skald the Rhymer is from Tennessee” then what you would have would be a classic instance of getting the major and minor terms the wrong way round. What Skald has given might be closer to a Hasty Generalization, where the speaker has taken 1. to imply that everyone from Tennessee is an asshole.
This is two different points, although along the same thought process, as it were. And you’ve rather twisted it around to the opposite of what I mean, but I think that may just have been a mistake.
My point is that courage comes about when facing a risk, yet deciding to take that risk anyway. The risk could take many forms, but in all of them it must involve some potential harm or difficulty to yourself should you fail (or, indeed, even if you succeed). A soldier can be courageous when he walks into enemy fire to retrieve a buddy because he risks death himself. A person making known their religious faith in a place where doing so may mean harsh words or even violence towards them is courageous because of the mental or physical harm they may take. As the risk of harm, or the harshness of the harm, increases, so does the courageousness of the person who chooses to do so anyway.
By that point, then, if the risk is removed, so too is the courageousness. A soldier retrieving a buddy from an entirely friendly zone is under no risk, and so shows no courage. A person making their religious faith known in a place where it is tolerated or even triumphed shows no courage either. Likewise, the risk may be there, but protected against, and again there is no courage. A soldier in a proven indestructible suit fetching a friend shows no courage, and the religious person backed up by a mob or bodyguards protecting from harm likewise shows no courage.
If a person believes, as the result of whatever kind of thought process, that they are protected from the harm of a risk, then no or little courage on their part is necessary. That’s because courage, too, is a result of that thought process; it’s an entirely subjective concept requiring only and singly that person’s mind
I’ll give you that nitpick. But you still have to relate it back to the original argument which was that logical arguments can lead to idiotic conclusions. It’s obvious that bad logic can lead to idiotic conclusions, and some good ones btw as well, since the conclusions are just random and have nothing to do with the logic.
If I did twist your point, it wasn’t to be misleading, but I do think you have the concept backwards.
Who decides on the level of potential harm?
This part seems to contradict your example about the soldier somewhat since in that example, you noted that there must be some objective risk, though I still don’t know who determines the objective level of that risk.
Take an example. Let’s say you have claustrophobia and are afraid of closets. Does it take courage to go into an empty closet? Even if there are no dangers that other people can see?
Here was my point from the earlier post:
What takes courage is to believe that the risk is low in your own mind without evidence.
Now let’s take this concept back to the context of this thread. Does it take courage for Christians to boldly espouse their faith in the US? Or maybe more pointedly, does it take courage for Christians to boldly espouse their faith on this message board, which is a very different question?
For the first question, you’re saying that it doesn’t because the majority of people in the US are believers so no consequence would come to them. But wouldn’t that depend on who their peers are? They may not come to physical harm, but the threat of ostracization and financial harm still exists if they feel that their peers or superiors have the authority or power to harm them by disagreeing with their religion.
As to the second question, Christians on this message board are clearly outnumbered and face having to engage in debates and ridicule that they would probably not have to face if they posted on a conservative Christian message board. Of course, being articulate and having a good reputation in either place or in any place helps the likelihood that the ridicule is minimized.
No, I didn’t. I used those to give examples of cases where there is a risk, but I didn’t select them because they held objective risks, just because they were the first ones that came to mind. What matters is the person’s view of it; if, to go back to the soldier example, there was no enemy fire but the soldier thought there was, the act would be a courageous one. Likewise, if he didn’t think there was enemy fire and there was, he wouldn’t be, despite there being an objective risk.
Yes, it would take courage to do so.
No, i’m not saying that. I gave that as an example, and I didn’t specify the U.S. Of course it would depend on who their peers are; and I gave the example of mental harm in my post. Really, I think you’ve read more than was there in this particular case. Yes, if they believe there is a risk they will suffer, what they have done is courageous.
These are good points. But you’ve hit upon the crux of my original post; it’s my position that kanicbird’s faith in particular (note that i’m not talking about all Christian or all people of faith) means that she is immune to such debating and ridicule. That she has a protector from that risk in God. So while certainly, ordinarily posting controversial posts knowing that they will engender ridicule can be courageous (to the extent that posting on a message board can be), kanicbird believes herself protected from that risk, and as such her acts are not courageous.
I came to this thread late, because I’ve been away, thrashing dunderheads on another forum. This is a fascinating and entertaining thread, with a number of wondrous tangents.
The clear highlight is **Malacandra’**s insight about beta-test Virgins!
Some time back, I clanked swords with Kanicbird. Kanicbird may be a shape-shifter, for she seemed quite female at the time. After a lot of sound and fury, I decided to never address that entity again. It believes itself to be correct, because of faith, at all times. There’s no reasoning with faith.
To be honest, I was hoping to forestall a few notorious atheists among us from answering, at least right away, without naming names. It’s not that I don’t appreciate their input; Der Trish, for instance, gave an absolutely wonderful answer to a thematically similar post I started about Tolkien the other day. But I was hoping to avoid a discussion on the morality of God and of belief in God.
According to the New Testement Mary did say,“Be it done unto me according to your word”. Which some suggest was her consent.
How ever if that really happened then the child she concieved was only half human and had no Human Male hormones,unless God stuck some in,then Jesus would be all human.
(Note to RT, I’m male), besides that, you are correct, the Lord does strengthen His followers, and I have endured ridicule, rejection and worse, with all I had to do to get out is denounce my Lord Jesus to end it. There is no way in myself I would be able to have withstood all that in my own strength. He not only gave me the strength, but the words to say and who to say them to and the timing.
I’m not saying I’m perfect about it, and I do make mistakes, but He has always brought me back again.
So my acts are not courageous in myself, in myself there is little courage, but it is Christ inside of me who gives me that courage, and it is Him that is courageous, not me.
It was a fish, and Jonah did sink down to the pit:
So it appears like Jonah entered Sheol (the abode of the dead/underworld) for those 3 days. Scriptures sometimes use the sea, and men who go down in the sea as a reference to Sheol/entering Sheol.
Wait a minute. You mean the words in the Bible are not literal truth? But allegory?
I am intrigued by your ideas and I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter.
But her consent was irrelevant. When the angel arrived, he was informing her of what had already been decided. It’s not like the Biblical God ever cares about mortal opinions.
Then again God knew she would consent, and since all time is in His hands, beginning to the end, she already gave consent, though to us it is in the future, to Him is has happened.
Also she has submitted herself to her Lord, He has such authority over her.
kanicbird, bear in mind that I’m not one of the persons averring that the conception of Jesus was an act of rape.
But something else occurs to me. Since you believe that, to God, the future has already happened, do you also believe that God determines every single choice any of us make? Moreover, do you believe that God has predestined which souls go to damnation and which to paradise after death?