I doubt that Jesus would have phrased it that way …
A bit surprised (but just a bit) that you didn’t say “I love you”. The word love has so many meanings and it’s very easy to misunderstand what someone means by that word. (I think that the only word that causes more misunderstanding than *love *is *God *…)
You’ve defined love as “the means by which goodness is conveyed” but you haven’t spent a lot of time discussing love. The word appears about 50 times in John’s Gospel, and about the same number in John’s epistles. In your example of your lesbian friend, you tell her to never let anybody tell her that *love *is sinful. And, you’ve defined Sin as “the obstruction of love”.
So, it seems to me that love is part of your Aesthetics, part of your understanding of the Aesthetical Jesus, and part of the answer to my question: “Why does it matter so much?”
You say:
But you don’t really explain why it is important. Why must people understand where it came from? Why can’t they be suddenly surprised? How does a four-thread thesis not waste time, in comparison to first making your point and then justifying and defending it?
Thank you for a direct statement of your witness.
Will you be getting into the implications of Jesus’s message?
Except that you’ve actually doubled the wasted time because you won’t actually respond to questions about the meaning of the passages. If you then build your argument out of such fanciful interpretations, then you are going to have to argue them there, since you refuse to do so here. So, now you have these threads, all for naught, because you’re just going to have to go over the same ground again.
That’s one of the things that I most admire about Jesus: the way He phrased things. His use of language was clear and unambiguous. Even His parables — His metaphors — were spot on, and perfectly constructed.
My bad then, for misunderstanding your question, because I do love you. I believe that I AM loving you by imparting this interpretation of Jesus’s message to you. I believe it is a message of great value. Even if you disagree with my interpretations — for which I hold you in no less regard than if you did agree.
Welllll, I duno (about the time discussing love). It is mentioned often in this thread, especially, what with it being mainly passages from John. And I often talk about it, using its definition rather than the word itself, really for no reason other than to further help orient people to what I mean when I say love. And so I speak often of the value of goodness, and the consequences of its conveyance. That is love that I’m talking about.
Yes, I think so. I’d put it a bit differently, but you have the gist of it. I would say that goodness IS an aesthetic, and that love is an aesthetical imperative. That’s pretty important, because Jesus’s moral imperative was “Be perfect.” (Matthew 5:48) Well, good luck with that. Thankfully, He knows that we can’t be morally perfect, but we can make good aesthetic choices. We can value goodness. Or put another way, we can value Him.
(All bracketed text added by me because our software does not carry over quotes, and because you asked three distinct questions.)
[1] Why must people understand where it came from?
Because this is a “cite” board. Some have complained that it’s even obsessed with demands for cites. If you make a gratuitous assertion, someone will demand a cite for it, and the discussion will become derailed as people argue over cites, rather than the topic. Laying out these passages from John provides, up front, my cites. So that will not be an issue, and the thread will not head off-course due to a demand for what has already been provided.
[2] Why can’t they be suddenly surprised?
Because when people are suddenly surprised, they become intellectually disoriented. Discussions become derailed by people saying that you’re pulling things out of your ass. You’re making things up as you go along. Or you’re an attention whore who makes cryptic statements that force people to ask you what you mean. And so, I am saying what I mean up front. No one should be surprised by anything I say in my OP.
3] How does a four-thread thesis not waste time, in comparison to first making your point and then justifying and defending it?
I suppose that could be a judgment call, but my judgment was that I should explain up front my terms and my interpretations because my OP will be extremely complex. It will span multiple posts. And I believe that people being able to read the OP, and understand what it says, and where it got its premises will help to foster a good debate. I think people will talk past each other less, if at all. I think people will argue about premises with a mutual understanding of what is meant by the terms used. In short, I just thought it was a better way.
You’re welcome.
Yes! Part of the complexity of the argument will be the many corollaries that will be drawn, *especially *with respect to the implications of His message.
I wonder whether you’d mind sharing how you came about it.
I’ve ignored your “contributions” for the most part. The last time I addressed you, I told you simply that if your next post came across to me as a sincere attempt to engage in a discussion, without the vitriol and sarcasm, that I would gladly answer you. Your response was dismissive. I discern in you no desire whatsoever to engage in a discussion hallmarked by mutual respect. Your post this time is a prime example of exactly what I’m talking about. But I renew my original invitation. Come back with unloaded questions and zero insults, and I will respond in full to your post. Show me some respect. If that is too much to ask, then there are too many people asking sincere questions to bother with someone who has no interest other than shitting in the thread. I hope that provides you and me with a mutual understanding.
That and most of Jesus’s words were re-translated so many times, you have how many different versions of the Bible, and they’re all second and third hand accounts.
You can repost the same snide remarks, but I’ll do you one better. I won’t repeat my original reply, I’ll do you one better.
Go back and read our interaction here. The dismissiveness and condescension came from your quarter, not mine. You claim to want respect, and yet you refuse to do the bare minimum to earn that respect, namely answer the questions put forth to you. Actually have the backbone to defend your statements, your assertions, your precious, little “interpretations.” That’s all that was asked of you, and what you gave in return was little but snide remarks.
So no, I’ll not show you respect, not until you’ve shown some respect for the collective membership of this message board and actually comport yourself in GD as if you belong here.
Given some correspondence I have had with someone whose judgment I trust, my next post will consist of a consolidation of my interpretations of the remaining chapters of John, with links provided for each chapter. Following any discussion about that post (or related matters), I will write my OP for Part V, and the debate can commence. Since it is after midnight here, this will probably occur sometime tomorrow. Thanks to all who are participating respectfully and to those who are only reading. You matter as well.
Still here. I just haven’t really had anything to say. As you may or may not know, I don’t believe in the historicity of Jesus at all, so this whole part IV has been of less interest to me. It’s useful to see where you’re coming from, but when my only comments would be “He didn’t really say that, you know.”, I don’t think I’d be very contributive, no?
You certainly have a good point THERE, MrDibble! However, even atheists have been able to find nuggets of gold in what they consider to be a minefield of muddle. See, for example, Atheists for Jesus. In any case, much appreciation for hanging in there.
In all seriousness, though, many of my postulates will come from passages from John or adaptations of those passages. I’m given to wonder how much the debate will interest you, since it will be all about the ministry of Jesus as revealed in the book of John. Of course, you could still get me on a fauly application of logic. You could maybe show that I’ve bifurcated or something. But if you will be denying any and all premises (which are drawn from this source), then it won’t matter at all whether the proof is otherwise valid, except as an exercise in spotting errors. But we certainly need that too, and if that is the role you would like to play, I welcome you — especially given your early cooperation in helping to define such terms as “morality” and “ethics”. Without you, there would have been much less clarity.
So if someone like me, who doesn’t believe in god or jesus were to state that in “your” thread then we aren’t welcome to contribute? How can there be a debate if a dissenting viewpoint to yours is dismissed even before it gets posted? I have no problem with you believing in whatever you want to. I also think you should at least try and see the viewpoint of others that do NOT have that same belief. If all your gonna do is post your interpretation of the book of john from the bible and then state “here’s what I believe, this is all you can make comments about” then it isn’t a debate.
Well, that’s your aesthetical judgment. I think that his language was not unambiguous (sometimes it was deliberately ambiguous), and his metaphors were not spot on nor perfectly constructed. The only evidence that I will present now to support my claim is the wide disagreement about his message, including your disagreement with the “orthodox” interpretation.
I am certain that you believe it. But, does the truth of your belief depend on your “cites” (and on your intrepretation of those cites), or does it depend on something simpler, deeper, more basic? For example, does your use of “I AM” suggest that you are a reflection of Christ/Man and Christ/God?
Another aesthetical judgment. I disagree, but I think that your ideas about Jesus’s message and purpose have value and are worth discussing.
Well, since you asked …
On another message board, there was a user called Anitra who described herself as a very liberal (yup!) Christian, and who would get into animated discussions with other posters who said that she wasn’t a Christian. I liked her approach and Googled “anitra” and found out that it means “duck” in Italian.
I first discovered SDMB when researching an email claim that a duck’s quack doesn’t echo. Well, I thought that my user name could echo Anitra’s approach (even though I am not a Christian), and then I thought of “ecco” as in the Italian translation of John 19:5: “Ecco l’uomo”. And, I noticed that if I transpose the “c” in duck with the “h” in echo, I get duhkecco, with the added bonus of “duh”. So, it’s “I don’t have a clue. Behold!”, with the “k” providing a consonant sound, which is repeated in “ecco”.
So, is it Liberalian aesthetics or Liberal’s aesthetics?
I haven’t said that at all. Look, I realize that you’re here mostly on a seek, kill, and destroy type mission. And that’s fine.
But these are the facts. I have invited people to debate so long as they have read and understood the definitions of terms (all of which I have said I would provide at the outset of the Part V OP.) Now, just above your post, I invited MrDibble to debate even though he may reject all my premises.
I also wrote this to The Lurker Above in my post #128 of this thread:
The argument I make will be extremly complex, and there will be much to debate.
Am I, for example, using my own definitions wrongly or differently. (You would point out equivocation.) Have I left out premises that were necessary for the argument that follows. (You would point out audiatur et altera pars.) Have I made an assumption — a premise — that cannot reasonably be induced from what has been presented as the epistemic source(s). (You would deny the premise.) Have I drawn an inference that does not follow as noted — say, a modus ponens of inferences (82) and (93). (You would cite a non sequitur.) Have I made contradictions? Reifications? Rhetorical appeals? A bifurcation? Have I begged the question? Is one of my premises the same as my conclusion?
And it isn’t only those sorts of things, but whether certain implications are made that I ignore, or misinterpret beyond all reason. It will be the layout of a belief system, but drawn deductively.
And that’s just if all the premises are accepted.
Now, the mere statement, “I don’t believe in Jesus” certainly wouldn’t be of any use to the debate. It’s just a statement, which you’re welcome to make, and I will acknowledge. But such a statement would have no bearing on the validity of the proof. It is up to you to decide whether you wish to participate in the debate, or merely make statements about your own beliefs. Needless to say, I would naturally be far more inclined to engage you in the former, rather than the latter.
You’re right. I should have said that it was unambiguous to me.
Certainly, it should be clear by now that I believe that all that is required to be one with God is belief in Him. And so, in that sense, yes, all believers are reflections of Christ. But only believers in the sense that I have defined belief: those who trust in, rely on, and cling to Him.
As to what my love for you depends upon, I would say that it depends upon my very simple belief that edifying you is a good thing —that is, a thing of great value. Now, if it weren’t just the message, then perhaps it would be a kind word, or an attempt to raise funds if you were in need, or any number of acts that serve to build up, rather than tear down, both you and me.
I sense that from you, and I appreciate it. By that, I mean that I sense your disagreement along with your respect. I am much the same way toward others. While, for example, I do not share the atheist point of view (though I did at one time), I am respectful of it, and consider it to be just as valid as my own point of view. We all live subjective lives. No two people have ever shared all experiences in common at the same time, and therefore all our moral and aesthetical journeys are different. I like the fact that you will be an opposing force in the debate because your approach is ideal. You treat the material with due respect, and you respond with a sincerity that is never unkind, snarky, or bullyish.
Fascinating. And brilliantly conceived.
Whatever pleases you is fine by me. And by the way, welcome to Straight Dope.
Well gee, thanks for knowing that I’m on a “seek, search and destroy type mission”. :rolleyes: Being that I don’t really recall ever interacting with you in the last nine years it’s a wonder that you know my motives better than I do.
What I was trying to say was that if I were to join in your “debate thread” whichever number you may assign to it, and I were to refute everything that you say as being ridiculous because the bible is fiction and there is no god, then would you still allow it? Also, just because you may say that a word means something does not neccessarily mean that that is what the word actually means, if you follow that convolution at all. Which, now that I look at it, does look pretty damn strange.
I’m curious as to the motives of people other than Liberal posting in this thread.
What benefit do you think you’ll get by a deep study of a self taught and rather peculiar philosophy? It’s not like these terms and ideas you are honing will really be useful when talking religion with anyone else, will they? The impression that I’ve got from previous philosophy/logic threads is that Lib is kind of off the mainstream there, let alone his God=Love version of “Christianity” (I’m not sure he would even call himself that given the pick and choose nature of his Bible study).
