Sorry if that sounded snippy. Wasn’t intended to be. The age-old problem that inflection doesn’t transmit well on a message board. By all means, it’s your thread. Take as much time as you like. And I did say, “submit it to discussion.” Of course you’re going to have the discussion about epistimology before opening Part V. It just seemed to me people were pulling you off in other directions and I was hoping to nudge the thread back to its intended topic.
ps - Do’h, I’ve managed to misspell epistemology twice. Slap me with a limp noodle. 
My apologies to all participants, but I no longer wish to pursue this project, at least not at this time. Thank you. A mod or admin may do whatever he or she wishes with the thread. Obviously.
WTF? That’s a bit of a let-down, Lib.
As long as this thread does not run off the rails or turn into some sort of Pit-lite forum for bitching, (something I have no impression that it will), I am going to leave it open for its participants and let it roll off the first page of the forum on its own.
Once it has rolled off, if it is resurrected, I do not intend to close it, (under typical “zombie” practice), unless it is used for taunts or complaints.
[ /Modding ]
Liberal, in the hope you will pop in and read what has been posted (though probably not respond), I’d like to offer a suggestion. This appears to be a work in progress, one objective of which is to persuade Christians to stop judging other people. I respectfully submit it would work better as a standard apologetic citing Scripture, rather than as a logic proof. Frankly, to my mind, those posts were more informative and easier to follow than the logic related ones. Of course we never got to the loose proof, but I have to believe it would be difficult for the ordinary Christian to follow. Since this is intended as a witness, it seems to me readability and comprehensibility are more important than rigor.
Just a suggestion.
As I’ve just advised other-wise, who has been kindly and thoughtfully messaging me, I had a talk with my wife, and she advised me — correctly, I believe — that both things with which I had been struggling were true: that (1) my hurt feelings are valid, and (2) I had made a commitment and had invested far too much to stop this series so abruptly. She added that it is unfair as well to the thread participants. And the logic in me told me that I was rationalizing a connection between (1) and (2), while ignoring the core concern.
So let me talk about (1) first, if only to get it out of the way. Indian Hater Jackson had a heart that was cold and black, nearly void of worth. He was almost aesthetically empty, as I view him. I know nothing of his morality, and do not doubt that my own is probably just as well worse than his as it would be better than his. All I know is that the stories my grandmother told me on her knee turned out to be true as I read more and more. Not just the modern white man’s retrospective viewpoints, but the viewpoints of Cherokee people at the time, and even white soldiers who were frozen to the bone with horror at the treatment of these inoffensive people. Theirs was not a stroll down a yellow brick road; it was a march that began through mountainous terrain of forests and clearings, sludging knee deep in snow. What little food they had was stolen by locals as they reached the open plains, or had molded, or spoiled. No one showed them any kindness as the ones who survived found themselves thousands of miles from their homes — stripped of their possessions, including their land — dumped out into the dead prairies of Oklahoma. He did not directly oversee this slaughter, but he had long made plans and deftly manipulated the circumstances that made it inevitable. It was the fulfillment of his lifelong ambition, and his final solution for the pesky Cherokee Nation. He was not even man enough to rise up from his retirement and lead his soldiers as they awoke startled people at dawn on that cold morning, just as winter was sweeping across the Appalachian hills. He left the assignment for this massacre to his lap dog. His successor, who is no more to blame than any other coward who feels compelled to do the will of a madman. The reason it is called the Trail of Tears is because it is said that everywhere a woman shed a tear, a rose grew. And that’s all I have to say about that.
With that said, I must admit to being humbled by Tom’s post. I took my hurt feelings out on you, Tom, and it wasn’t your fault. I’m sorry.
Now, with respect to (2), I simply must finish this. Until and unless I am banned or suspended from posting, I will finish this. Because it is important to ME. I know I let down a lot of people by just jetting suddenly, but I let down myself the most. I consider this work to be the most important thing I’ve ever done in my life. Saying that will serve two purposes: it will give the snarkers a hundred snappy lines, and it will give those who have graciously followed along with me what they deserve.
So, as promised, I will at this time lay out the epistemological framework for my argument which will follow in the subsequent and final thread. It is, as I’ve said many times, mostly the book of John, and a few citations from other sources. This will be our knowledge that we will be working with. For purposes of this thread, there is no point in questioning the veracity of the knowledge source, but merely in establishing that we all understand it in the same way. Remember: the object is that there be no ships passing in the night during the debate.
The first source is this, from the book of Exodus:
Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”
God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ "
Exodus 3:13-14
The NIV translation notes that the key passage could also read as “I shall be what I shall be”. This passage is, in fact, almost the only place where the Hebrew for “I am” is NOT translated as “I shall be”. It is not inconceivable that this choice of syntax is influenced by Christianity and Christian translators.
This is from John the Beloved
[Jesus said,] “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
“You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews [who believed Him] said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
John 8:56-58
Let us set aside, for the moment, the controversy that surrounds the Beloved’s references to “the Jews”, and concentrate on the core of the passage. It is clearly Jesus declaring His eternal nature: the juxtaposition of the present tense (His own existence) with the past tense (the existence of Abraham) — and not only that, but connecting them by a preposition that, strictly, is contradictory of the statement made. It is a statement of an effect preceding a cause. He is saying that His existence spans all of existence, while Abraham’s was temporal and fleeting.
Now, regarding references to “the Jews”. The notion has been raised before, among “scholars” (definitely not defining) that these were the writings of an anti-Semite because of John’s frequent references to “the Jews”. But John was himself a Jew. As was Jesus. And in passages in which he refers to Jews, he does so to differentiate some Jews from others. In the case cited above, it was to differentiate Jews who believed Jesus from those who did not. Judaism is monotheistic, but it is not monolithic. John the Beloved was no more an anti-Semite than Barack Obama is a racist for differentiating African-American men who behave responsibly from those who abandon their families. It is a non issue.
Finally, it must be said that John, at least, believed that Jesus was presuming the identity of God Himself because of the parallels between the statement of Jesus and the statement God made to Moses. It is reasonable to assume that John would have equated even an “I shall be” to an “I am”, no matter whether the Christian translators (who came much later, of course) were biased. It is reasonable to assume that John the Beloved would have had the same bias, or the same sort of biases.
Is there any disagreement? Or question? Or comment?
(Note to PBear: your offer of advice is greatly appreciated. But I believe that this is the way I should proceed. It’s the only way, really, that I know how. Ironic, isn’t it, that this is the thread about epistemology.)
Just a reminder: it makes no difference whether you agree or disagree with the source, or even whether you believe this is or isn’t a good source, or qualified source. All that matters is whether you agree with my interpretations of what these sources mean.
Glad to see you changed your mind. FWIW, I believe the correct term for what you’re doing now is exegesis, not epistemology.
I think a better way to put it, PBear, is that what we’re doing is formulating a source of knowledge* based on* my interpretation of certain scripture. It’s something I’ve said for some time now that we will be doing. When we debate, the only source of knowledge with respect to Jesus is what we will have specified here. The examination of meaning is, once again, so that we all have a mutual understanding. So far, we’ve come mutually to understand certain terms — even terms with almost new meanings, like “aesthetics”. And now we’re coming to understand (mutually, I hope) the meanings of certain Biblical passages (especially those of John and those relating to John).
It is in a spirit of appreciation for your contributions that I, once again, tell you that I know what I’m doing and what my intentions are. Debating whether this is exegesis or espitemology would, unfortunately, result in a derailment of the thread. It is like arguing about which goes on in a classrooom: learning or teaching, rather than concentrating on the subject of the class itself.
Since it does seem a bit unclear to you what I’m up to (it is possible that certain key passages were missed in earlier threads), I intend to present my argument, sui generis, in Part V that Jesus is qualified, but neverthess refuses, to judge our morality, and that instead, He allows us to make our own aesthetical choices, and that those choices are our “judgment” (defined later) — that in fact, we judge ourselves. This whole series has been a study of meaning whose purpose, again, is so that we won’t be ships passing in the night when we debate. The debate will not be about whether God exists or any of that, but about whether my belief system is supported by selected scripture and refined definitions.
The terms, concepts, and now the source of knowledge used will be those expressed in these threads. And so my advice, if you’d like to participate in that debate (and I hope you will) is that you absorb as much as you can from these preliminary threads. They map, roughly, the same mental journey with which I evaluate my own faith and beliefs. Although I know you are well meaning, it is not helpful to keep interjecting what you believe I should be doing. I do take it, however, in the manner it is intended, and so I hope you will take this in the same way.
Returning to the topic at hand, is there any disagreement or comment about my interpretations with respect to the passages from Exodus 3 and John 8? (That includes you too, PBear, of course.) If not, I’ll presume full agreement, and procede later this evening to the second set of passages.
Incidentally, PBear, I’m not merely trying to tell Christians that they shouldn’t judge one another. Had that been my intention, a single passagewould have sufficed in a single thread.
Comments? Sure, there are comments.
To start with, I’ll just touch upon two points in your evaluation of John.
First, you do realize, don’t you, that it’s ridiculous to claim that the writings of John couldn’t be anti-Semitic because he’s Jewish, right? It’s entirely possible for a Jewish person, especially one who is pushing for a rather radical change as Christianity would be, to express what could be considered anti-Semitic remarks or to hold some generally anti-Semitic ideas. This possibility is especially strong since this gospel wasn’t written for a Jewish audience, but for a Gentile one. Beyond that, the text that we have has gone through so many Christian hands that it is all but impossible to assume that the message has been preserved unchanged.
Second, any analysis of the text is going to fall apart when, as it appears you are doing, it is assumed that the author of the gospel is the apostle John. Making such an assumption is certainly going to lead to significant sources of bias and error in analysis.
But more important to these comments is the trouble with this “debate” in the larger view.
You claim that “the debate will [be] about whether my belief system is supported by selected scripture and refined definitions.” Well, we can already call the game over, my friend. I can hardly contemplate any idea that couldn’t be supported by a carefully chosen selection of scripture. What’s worse, this discussion won’t merely be about those scriptures, but “based on [your] interpretation of certain scripture.” So now we are starting not with the words themselves, but with your thoughts on them.
But, you might say, there is other scripture that one can use as counter-points. This is true, but you have already worked well to dismiss those by laying out the provision that “the only source of knowledge with respect to Jesus is what we will have specified here” and your decision to delay laying out your argument until the final thread. While one could, theoretically, present counter-evidence to the minor points being discussed in these threads, you have, rather crookedly, rigged the rules and execution of the final “debate” entirely in favor of your position. You have further debased the value of such a “debate” by excluding discussions on the validity of the source in the first place.
What, then, is the point?
Nice tap dance, but not true.
A Jew who believes in a “Son of God” isn’t a Jew (religiously) any more.
AKA: Christians
AKA: Jews.
Sooooo…you’re saying that he can’t POSSIBLY be an anti-Semite because he distinguished Jews from Christians? :dubious:
Judaism certainly is monolithic about certain things and one of them is “No Triune Gods”. There’s no fluffy “open to interpretation” grey area there on this point.
“Sh’ma Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad”-“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One (God).” is a, if not the primary, non-debatable core belief in Judaism. You disavow that, you’re no longer religiously a Jew in the same way someone who said Christ was the spawn of Satan sent to tempt men into Satan’s realm wouldn’t be Christian.
Soooo–Jews who believe in the primary principles of their faith are like African-American men who abandon their families? Nice.
This whole line of “reasoning” is a pernicious incorrect, self-serving wankfest of a statement.
John wasn’t remotely Jewish religiously. His heritage was Jewish, but that’s about it. He was an apostate, a schismatic who left his faith and the faith of his fathers for a new religion, and that’s ok. You’re allowed to leave your faith.
But you pretzel-twisting the core tenets of Judaism to try to score points isn’t ok.
The point is to find flaws in my reasoning, if they exist. As explained in the first thread, I will lay out an informal proof that will consist of definitions (drawn by concensus in the first three threads), a set of axioms (or premises, drawn from the epistemic revelations in this thread), and a set of inferences, the last of which will be a conclusion (of course).
The important thing to address in Part V will be whether I am properly applying the rules of logic. Is, for example, inference number (12) really drawn by modus ponens from premise (2) and inference (6)? Or more loosely, are there any leaps of logic?
Of course it goes without saying that my faith will be based on my interpretations of these scriptures. But the question is whether the conclusion I reach is consistent with those interpretations and follow ordinary rules of reason.
With respect to the authorship of John or any other such matters, they are, as I explained multiple times (including in this OP and in other threads) irrelevant for this purpose. If the words were written by Mickey Mouse, they would hold the same weight as far as I am concerned — in other words, I don’t care who wrote them; I care only that they are meaningful to me.
That’s why all these threads have been clearly identified as witnessing threads. The last one, however, will be a debate, the nature of which I have described above (and previously as well). Participation in that debate is certainly not manditory, and in fact, I will discourage as much as I can the participation of anyone who has not familiarized himself/herself with all the concepts presented before it. I can’t prevent thread shitting, but I can certainly identify it and mark it as irrelevant.
I have requested specifically that posters in this thread address the questions I have asked. In fact, posting in this thread at all is a waste of time without familiarity with the previous three threads (all linked in the OP). This is not a debate thread, as the OP makes plain. Please extend the courtesy of participating in a manner that is in keeping with the thread. The open question, at this point, is whether my interpretation of the link between the passages in Exodus and in John is a reasonable one. That is the question that posters should address, and only then if they are veterans of the previous three threads.
No. I’m not going to let comments like you made go by unexamined/undebunked. Your request is irrelevant and anathema to the the spirit of the Board.
It’s been a long, LONG standing principle of the SDMB that the OP doesn’t control or own the thread and the idea that you can restrict participation and get a free pass to spew whatever you like by saying the threads is only for “veterans of the previous three threads.”. Get a private blog if you want to make offensive comments without having to have people object to them.
You brought up the…damn, I hate that I can’t say “lies”…pernicious and factually incorrect statements here, I’ll deal with them here.
The open question, as far as I’m concerned is why are you making factually incorrect comments about the Jewish faith and defending Jew-Hater John (heh)'s anti-Semitic comments?
Do you believe that John couldn’t be an anti-Semite because, at one point, he was Jewish? Do you really believe that someone who left their religion for a new one couldn’t have an unreasoning hatred for the beliefs he rejected?
So, in other words, as long as you think the framing is square, you don’t care whether you lay the foundation on the rock or on the sand.
Then this isn’t even witnessing, as that would imply that there is some concern that the information presented is the Truth. Instead this is just a masturbatory exercise.
Ah yes, the last refuge of the dishonest debater and internet coward, the cry of “thread shitting!” Pointing out where you’ve gone wrong in your execution, whether or not it conforms to your wishes about which areas are open to investigations, is not thread shitting.
And why do you have some sort of need to call the statements lies? It is not as though Liberal was creating a screed to condemn Judaism. He mentioned one issue, in passing, that does not appear to be central to his own discussion. I have no problem with anyone pointing out that his dismissal of John’s use of the phrase is not in accord with the majority of scholarship. Once that point has been made, however, there is no point in hijacking the thread–ore violating the rules of the forum–simply to harp on that matter.
You’ve made you point, now back off of the hijack. Your issue is really irrelevant to the thread.
And if you have some deep-seated need to hurl insults, yoiu can open up your own thread in the BBQ Pit to hurl them.
= = =
Look, this series of threads has gone on for a couple of months, now. The particxipation in each thread has been
And why do you have some sort of need to call the statements lies? It is not as though Liberal was creating a screed to condemn Judaism. He mentioned one issue, in passing, that does not appear to be central to his own discussion. I have no problem with anyone pointing out that his dismissal of John’s use of the phrase is not in accord with the majority of scholarship. Once that point has been made, however, there is no point in hijacking the thread–ore violating the rules of the forum–simply to harp on that matter.
You’ve made you point, now back off of the hijack. Your issue is really irrelevant to the thread.
And if you have some deep-seated need to hurl insults, yoiu can open up your own thread in the BBQ Pit to hurl them.
= = =
Look, this series of threads has gone on for a couple of months, now. The particxipation in each thread has been
Part 1: 134 posts, with 8 serious posters and 2,509 views
Part 2: 55 posts, with 5 serious posters and 1,156 views
Part 3: 72 posts, with 4 serious posters and 1,261 views
Part 4: