OK, catch me up on something. If I’m reading things correctly (which I may well not be), God is goodness and love, which means that God increases the value of free moral agents. How does this jibe with God’s habit of slaughtering people in the Old Testament?
Well, just to correct a technicality, God is the agent Who facilitates or conveys goodness, which means He is love (which is the facilitation or conveyance of goodness). Goodness is the edification between or among free moral agents.
But how it jibes with the Old Testament is of no concern to me. As I said early on, I cherry pick words that are meaningful to me. I do not take the Bible as “The Word of God” or anything like that. As far as I’m concerned, anything in the Bible (or elsewhere written) that contradicts the tenets I’m laying out here is false and/or misleading.
Now, you can get a scholarly type answer from any number of sources. I’m just not one of them. I hope that answers your question.
Akennett, you’ve posted a lot in this thread. Let us set aside for the moment that the debate has not yet begun, the reason I have not been addressing your posts is the attitude that I perceive from them. They come across, to me, as sniping. And not just sniping, but bitter sniping. I’m just not going to deal with that. If you really want to participate, and really do seek answers to your questions, I would remind you that at this stage, the purpose of discussion is nothing more than to better understand my faith, my statements, or my train of thought. It’s ALL about understanding at this point, not debating. And certainly not condescension or gotchas or stabs at random parcels of statements. If the next post from you comes across to me as a sincere attempt to understand my position, then I will respond to it. Otherwise, I will continue to see your name and move on. I’m sorry if that hurts your feelings, but there are a lot of people who are serious and interested in this, and it would be unfair to them if I went off on tangents, debating things I have said. It is up to you now. Do as you will.
There is no sniping in my posts, and certainly not bitter sniping. Each and every question is one honestly asked and has direct bearing on establishing the credibility of the “interpretations” presented here. You know, in the spirit of the times that “This is the time to raise objections about my interpretations” is in effect, rather than those when “the debate has not yet begun” apparently rules.
As for condescension, I’d recommend you look at your own posts for the source of that in this thread. And to your pseudo-apology, I’ll just tell you not to give yourself so much credit, that you think any post of yours could hurt my feelings. I’m just interested in holding you to your alleged standard of “healthy and honest debate” and not at all in your opinion of me.
John 10 continues directly from 9 (with the healing of the blind man) and is pretty well chock full of social controversy. For one thing, Jesus is telling a parable about sheep and their shepherd, and there is a caricature out there about people following someone around like sheep. It is entirely possible that some people who use the saying (or its variants), don’t really quite understand what it is they’re saying. To follow like a sheep means to follow the one you trust. It does not mean to follow blindly. Sheep do not follow anyone other than their shepherd, because they do not know, or trust, or even recognize someone else. This only means they are natured like most domesticated animals. They recognize an owner. (I will grant cat lovers an exemption, if they insist.)
But secondly, it makes reference again (as does almost every chapter of John) to “the Jews”. And I am aware of the profound feelings of some people about this matter. I do understand how the Beloved’s passages could be construed to be anti-semetic. I am not unsympathetic to that view, and I do not hold it to be invalid. But I simply will not go so far as to say it is sound. For one thing, the context makes clear in each case of which set of Jews Jesus is speaking with — whether believers or disbelievers, whether Temple officials or crowds at hillsides. There would be less social controversy today, had he written “the people” rather than “the Jews”. But it is a logical falacy to apply today’s zeitgeist to the zeitgeist of two thousand years ago. It is not the case that every reference to the Jews is a negative one. In fact, many are positive, as in this passage:
At these words the Jews were again divided. Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?”
But others said, "These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?
John 10:19-21
It is just a simple fact of the matter that the audience Jesus spoke to the most were Jews. It might seem redundant, at first glance, that the Beloved should mention them in what we would call “ethnic” terms. Again, why not just “the people”? But aside from what we’ve already covered, Judea, while it was something of a minor Roman province, generally troubled the Romans, because they depended on the Temple officials to keep the peace.
But at this time in its history, Judea was bristling with a spirit of rebellion and a sense of, if not sovereignty, then at the very least autonomy. The Romans were not unaware of this. There were people who were contemporaries of Jesus (and even people who preceded Him) who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah. Of course, the Temple officials of the time (as well as Jews of today) were looking for a very different kind of Messiah than those who stepped forward — including (and maybe especially, given the ubiquity of Christendom) Jesus. There had been revolts before, and the Romans kept occupation forces in Judea.
Third, the Herodian Temple had become, in the eyes of some Jews, corrupted. They called it “banditry.” (Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Social Structures and Social Conflicts, K. C. Hanson, Douglas E. Oakman, p 155). There were some followers of Jesus who thought He had come to restore the Temple to its prior glory — in other words, to clean it up. And even the zealots were likely impressed when He, as the famous story goes, overturned the tables of the temple money changers, and chased them away with a stick, declaring that this is His Father’s house, and that it should be a house of prayer, not a den of thieves.
The Pharisees were beginning to lose their grip on things, and the Sadducees were elbowing their way in to take over. Since the latter was more concerned with Temple procedure and ritual, while the former was more lay, they (the Sadducess) pretty much just petered out after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, a reference I’ve made before. And so the Pharisees were struggling to hold onto power, as Rome was becoming more and more impatient with all the noise from Judea.
Finally, there were more than just Jews in Judea. There were Romans, and Samaritans, and Palestinians, and Arabs, and people of every culture visiting or working. It wasn’t Rome’s biggest commercial hub, but it was not ethnically pure. Of the groups to whom Jesus spoke, they were most often the Jews. But not always. He had encounters with the Romans (like Pontius Pilate, and the Centurian who asked Him to heal his child), and given the places he frequented — the homes of whores and tax collectors and even Pharisees (Nicodemus was a Pharisee, and he sympathized with Jesus) — He most likely encountered all sorts of people. It is only right, even for that reason alone, that the Beloved identify the people to whom Jesus was speaking. Had he not done so, there would be questions now about whom He was speaking to. When they were Romans, they were identified as Romans. When they were Samaritans, they were identified as Samaritans. And when they were Jews, they were identified as Jews.
So, these kinds of things: people who behave like wandering sheep, and the Beloved writing “the Jews” instead of “the people” — these are completely phony objections to the writings as a whole. I know that there are people who disagree. Strongly. And who would take the points I made one by one and parse them out into a debate. I would only ask that if you intend to do that, please start a thread of your own. It is a completely different topic from the topic I am presenting, and the topic we are discussing here. Feel free to reference this post in the OP of your thread, and parse the pertinent parts to pieces. But I beg that you do not do that here.
Okay. Now that we know how sheep actually behave, let’s have a look at some passages from the Beloved:
“I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.”
John10:1-5
This is obviously a parable about His followers. They follow Him because they know His voice. This can be a metaphorical voice (especially since it is already a metaphor.) And so, it can mean (and really, MUST mean) that some internalized recognition of what Jesus is placing into your awareness versus what is being placed there by someone else or some sensory stimulus, exists. If the sheep are to hear His voice, as He says they do, then it follows that there must be some means by which they do this.
Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.”
John 10:7-10
He calls Himself “the gate”, and declares that all who came before Him, claiming His status, were bogus — thieves and robbers. He splits Himself apart from all the others who claimed to be the Messiah, and says that the reason He came was so that the sheep would have life. In other words, if the sheep entered the gate he tended (“I am the gate”), they would be safe; whereas if they entered other gates or jumped the fence, they were out of place, and had no business in the pasture. The sheep, obviously, represents those who beileve in Him (as we have defined belief.)
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.”
John 10:11-13
Jesus says that He is the “good shepherd”; i.e., the one you can trust in, cling to, and rely upon. These words comprise our definition of belief. Therefore, He is the one you can believe in and be safe (from death). He also points out, ominously, that the good shepherd will lay down His life for the sheep. A mere hired hand won’t do that. He’ll run away from the wolf (or whatever attacker), while the good shepherd will defend His sheep to the death.
I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
John 10:14-18
Now the metaphor segues into a personal testimony. He — Jesus personally — lays down his life and takes it up again. In other words, He will die and will be resurrected. This is his first declaration about His death, and because it is wrapped up in a parable, the disciplles and the Jews who believed in Him, seeemed to take it as “I *would *lay down my life,” when in fact, Jesus means that He WILL lay down His life. And take it up again. Moreover, He will do this of His own accord. No one will take His life from Him. Not the Jews. Not the Romans. Not anyone except Him Himself. He claims the authority to do so is commanded by God. This is often misread as a commandment by God for Him to lay down His life, but the commandment, as Jesus made plain was to give the authority, not the order. In other words, it is all up to Him. He can accept or decline. The authority is His, granted by God’s own command.
Then there is some squabbling about His miracles. The Jews who are gathered are divided over Him — as one might expect. He is making sweeping claims about Himself, and is asking them for not only their recognition of Him, but He is asking for their trust, their reliance, their steadfast clinging. As is usually the case, those who are most angry about or opposed to something speak out the loudest. And this case is no different.
Note that I’m not even going near the “other sheep that are not of this sheep pen” thing. It has been interpreted to mean everything from people outside Judea to the people in Central America — even beings from other planets. Whatever. It doesn’t matter here. I just interpret it broadly to mean other people He has spoken to, whoever they may be. It is of no consequence.
Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. The Jews gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ (the Messiah), tell us plainly.”
Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
John 10:22-30
Well, there’s enough controversy for you, if there weren’t enough already. There is no point in ignoring the elephant in the room. It is the last sentence that catches the eye, the brain, the emotion, and the attention. “I and the Father are one.” The interpretations abound. It is often a part of the formulation of a Trinity argument, but is interpreted by others as a metaphorical reference since He had returned to talking about His sheep. But my interpretation is that it is a statement about aesthetics; that is, Jesus values exactly what His Father values, and it is in that sense that they are one. Of course, my whole thesis is based on Jesus bringing an aesthetical message, and so we cannot take this up as a premise.
Whatever the case with respect to the “divinity” of Jesus (a word I will define), He is no more and no less divine than any free moral agent Who values goodness above all else. But there is something reassuring in the passage: namely, that once you have given yourself over to Him, no one can snatch you away. It is a categorical statement. That means that there are no conditions. So, every “if” is moot. If you have lost your faith, it makes no difference. If you’ve done this or if you’ve had that, then no matter. No one can take you from His grasp.
Divinity: the quality of valuing goodness above all else
Jesus then reasons with the people, who by now have picked up stones, asking them for which of His miracles they were stoning Him. And they replied that they were not stoning Him for any miracles, but for the blasphemy of claiming to be God.
“We are not stoning you for any of these … but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
John 10:33
Jesus responded by citing their own scripture, specifically Psalms 82:6. He reasoned that since there was precedence for men being gods, then His claim to be the Son of God or One with God was unremarkable.
“Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
John 10:(36)-38
Here is where Jesus contextualizes His “I and the Father are one”. It is that they are interwoven. Within one another. The relationship might not even have a “real world” analogy (which isn’t real in our sense — recall our Metaphysics thread). Owing to the nature of our electromagnetic universe, whose space is curved by mass, it is not possible for two things to occupy the same space at the same time. Now, some quantum geeks will argue that certain particles can and do occupy the same space at the same time, but that’s quite beside the point. Whatever particles are (and there is still controversy about what they fundamentally are), they are not what we are in the world in which we function. Or as Raymond Hall of Fermilab put it, “Stuff is made of atoms. Therefore, atoms can’t be made of stuff.”
But as we know, arguments about atoms and such are irrelevant, since Jesus is talking about the spirit. Spirit is of the nature that it occupies all spacetime and more at once. Now, I realize almost anyone can accept the “at once” for the sake of argument, but I also realize that many of you will balk at the “and more”. Those who do will argue that there is no more. But clearly, Jesus has taught us that there is. And the teachings of Jesus, as told by John the Beloved, are the epistemological basis for our thesis. And so, the fact that there is both a spiritual world and a physical world shall be taken as axiomatic.
You can draw an analogy, I suppose, to there being a quantum world and a meta world, to each of which different laws apply (despite the noble quest for a unified theory). And of course, you may argue that there is evidence for a quantum world, but that evidence is merely mathematical in nature. Or as Werner Heisenberg put it, “The atoms or the elementary particles are not real; they form a world of potentialities and possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
In any case, that concludes our study of John 10.
It was a digression about authorship and epistemology. I can’t make my observations without discussing that. So, I’ll just get out of the way and let you continue with your exegesis/witness.
As for the debate, I’ve said before that I don’t believe you have the right as the OP to tell me what issues I may or may not raise. You do have the right, of course, to point out (again) that epistemology is of no interest to you. Others may feel differently. FWIW, if I raise the issue, it will be because it seems to me pertinent to the debate. And, if I’m anticipating correctly where this is going, it will come in as a coda, i.e., as an explanation (one of several) for why the proof went wrong. All of this assuming I participate in Part V, which I have not yet decided.
I’ve certainly never pointed out that epistemology is not important to me. This whole thread is devoted to my epistemic source. As I’ve already explained, although it is an exegesis, that does not prevent it from being an epistemic source. The comments are given so that people will know how I interpret the passages. Without the comments, no one would know what the passages mean to me — i.e., what knowledge I’ve gained from them.
<bolding mine>
So, after four separate threads, you’re now saying that the debate hasn’t even begun yet? In a forum titled GREAT DEBATES??? I’ve been reading this stuff hoping for some sort of debate and was wondering why I couldn’t find any.
Good job at chain pulling there Liberal. If all you wanted was a thread for people to agree with everything that you said in, why not just post it to livejournal or something?
What a waste of bandwidth.
In fairness, he has tried to make it clear that parts 1-4 are framed as witnessing.
Granted, I would appreciate it if he tried to clarify what counted as “asking for clarification” vs. “debating”, but I think he’s been clear all along that he intends part 5 to be the debate debate.
You’re sure that it isn’t just going to be the pre-debate-setup to the pre-debate to the debate? Because I can see this going on for a loooooooooong time…
If he was actually going to start a debate based on his “witnessing threads”, then why not just keep ONE thread open rather than four separate ones?
That’s a fair question, Xploder. The reason is because in each thread, we dealt with a separate philosophical aspect.
In the first thread, we discussed aesthetics. (It took some time for the thread to move in the right direction, but eventually it did.) We looked at the work of philosophers of the past like Kant and Schopenhauer, and developed our own brand new treatment of aesthetics, based on value rather than beauty. In the second thread, we discussed morality and ethics. Along the way, we developed a consensus on definitions. For example, in the second thread, we differentiated morality from ethics by determining that morality is personal, whereas ethics are societal, and we developed our definitions on that basis. The third thread covered the angle of metaphysics and ontology, in other words, the nature of reality and existence. There, we defined more terms and hashed out more ideas about existentialism versus essentialism, for instance. And now, in this thread, we are dealing with the philosophical principle of epistemology, which has to do with the source and nature fo knowledge. Our source of knowledge consists of (most of) the book of John, and selected passages from other sources. The final thread, then, which will be the next one, will be where I lay out my thesis: namely, that the message Jesus brought was aesthetical in nature, rather than moral in nature. I intend to prove this deductively based on how we have defined our terms, and the knowledge we have derived from John. People will be free to debate me (or side with me, possibly).
And so, that’s why the threads were split up. They were different topics, even though they were all about my witness. And despite its name, Great Debates is where witnessing threads are relegated. Therefore, I had no choice but to post here. I regret that that confuses or irritates people, but it’s not my call.
Anyway, I hope that answers your question, and I appreciate your asking a good one.
edited to add… Thanks for the reply even though I never expected one!
No problem. I have no argument with that. My question still stands though…why have FOUR different threads about the same thing? Do you seriously mean to tell me that you thought people wouldn’t be able to follow a break in the thread to ponder you new little tidbit of wisdom?
No offense bud but really, unless you’re Oral Roberts or something, (and you ain’t), nobody needs that much space to tell the world what they believe in.
If all you were doing was setting out the ground rules for the eventual, maybe, might happen debate, then you could have done it in one post rather than four threads. What you have done so far, is to make people see your name and say, “wow! that liberal guy suuuuuuure is long winded!”
No offense, and the previous was hyperbole (sort of) but still…NOBODY needs that long to lay out the ground rules. Hell, the Government doesn’t do things that crappy.
Again, maybe this should have been taken to livejournal and then you could have just paster a link to it saying “here! this is what I believe! follow my precepts or get out!”
Just sayin’ is all…
I appreciate your input, Xploder, and it certainly could have been done the way you suggest. But I did it my way for the reasons given above.
John 11 deals first with the resurrection of Lazarus, which nobody is going to believe actually happened. Well, maybe not nobody, but still. We can glean, however, a real gem from that part of the chapter:
Jesus said to [Martha], "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.
John 11:25-(26)
This is an extremely important piece of information. Recall that we defined death as the absence of essence, necessity, and eternity. More and more, Jesus cuts a dichotomy straight between the physical and spiritual worlds. He states plainly that even people who have died will live, if they belive in Him. The obvious temporal problem can be solved by ministering to the spirits of those who have died physically. And since the spirit is alive, having all three elements of reality, it follows that He can minister to those who are in our past. They are not in His past, since His presence is eternal (as we established in John 8).
This, combined with what we learned in John 10, implies that people of any culture or background can be saved from death by believing in Him, because in 10, he dresses down the Temple officials (implying that he has no allegience to their Talmud interpretations). He has said here, as He has said elsewhere that the invitation is open-ended. He uses over and over the phrase “whoever believes” — not “whichever Jews believe,” nor “whichever Romans believe”, but rather *whoever *believes. Belief, as we have defined it, isn’t possible without trust. And trust is what is lacking, it seems to me, with atheists. Without trust, there will be no reliance or clinging.
And yet, the sense that I receive from these passages suggest that an atheist, upon death, wil see Jesus face to face. At that time, the atheist will make an aesthetical decision just like the rest of us. He might see Jesus as that which He has always searched for.
Which brings us to an important point also. Religion politicians through the ages have used His name to swindle, dupe, and otherwise rob people of their time, money, and services. Those in the highest offices have waged wars and killed men in His name. They even use Him as a way to rationalize their own obstruction of goodness. Even though they have called themselves Christians, they will surely NOT find Him aestheticaly appealing because what they seek is conflict and power, while He is peaceful and uses His powers only for good.
In other words, there are going to be (and from His perspective have already been as well) some very surprised people. Lifelong atheists will love His presence and bask in it, while lifelong Christians will see Him as an obstacle to their goal and will not abide His presence. This is the blind seeing, and those who claim they see turning away.
Our judgment will be our own, by virture of our evaluation of Him and His worth. And it doesn’t matter whether that evaluation takes place here and now on earth, or whether it takes place after our bodies have died. Put another way, every human being will have seen Jesus sooner or later, and will then make an aeshtical judgment of what He is worth to them, and whether they value what He values — goodness.
The rest of the chapter (the end of it, really) deals with the Pharisees calling a meeting of the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was the equivalent of our Supreme Court, except that it was more powerful and had more members. (71, I think.) It is the beginning of the Pharisees’ attempt to solve the Jesus problem.
“What are we accomplishing?” they [the Pharisees] asked. “Here is this man performing many miraculous signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
John 11:(47)-48
(Incidentally,when you see verse numbers in parentheses like that, it means that only part of the verse is quoted.)
This is their concern, as we have expressed previously, and is what they value most. They are very much like the rich man who turned away raher than give up his riches (which we’ve covered.) They value their status and their nation. They are very much like some of our own politicians. In fact, they value their status so much that they are willing to kill a man to save it.
Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”
John 11:49-50
Well, then. So mote it be.
Could you provide a couple of examples or counterexamples to clarify this definition a bit? e.g., would old man Phelps count as a “religion politician”? Or how about Jim Jones? Or a streetcorner preacher who threatens passersby with hellfire? Or some pastor who sincerely believes he’s doing the right thing in influencing his congregation?
Essentially, I’m wondering whether the key aspect is manipulation or enrichment, and whether enrichment means “money” or “power/influence” or both; and what type of power/influence.
And then of course there’s the inevitable follow-up question: Would you consider yourself a religion politician; why or why not?
LIberal, Post #145 seems to me a bit disingenuous. If epistemology as ordinarily defined is a fair topic for discussion in this thread (meaning Part IV), please advise. If so, I have a few things to say.
Please notice that I’m trying very hard not to be disruptive. But, you’re sending mixed signals about what we’re discussing.
Both aspects, manipulation and enrichment, must apply. Politics, as it is used here, involves the manipulation of people for enrichment directly or indirectly, and it infects every discipline from religion to government to academia to the arts and sciences. A direct example of manipulation would be a government politician who uses lies and promises he never intends to fulfill to get votes. An indirect example would be a lawmaker who helps to enact legislation that forces politically weak people from their homes in order to help a buddy’s expanding business, often with the promise of future employment or board membership in return. Religion politicians are no different. Those who use scripture or revelations from God to get more money in their coffers or more land or more influence or more power over legislators — they are religion politicians. It need not be a large power base that they’re after. Smaller minded men with the same aesthetic are content to woo a few followers who will devote their lives and their possessions to his cause or crusade. This is why Jesus was not a religion politican. What he told the rich man was not “give you money to me”; rather, it was “give your money to the poor”. Since it is impossible for us to judge the hearts of men (see Part II on morality and ethics) no one can say for a certainty who is or is not a religion politician. You are free to make moral judgments, but to make them rightly you would need to live the lives of those you judge or else be omniscient. You can, however, make ethical judgments. And here, scripture can be helpful. “Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.” Matthew 7:20. In other words, what is it they are producing? Bigger homes and churches for themselves? Or bigger homeless shelters and more food for the poor? As to your specific examples, you must decide for yourself, using the definition you quoted as a guide.
Just as you are not trying to be disruptive, I am certainly not trying to be disingenuous. This is indeed both an exegesis and an epistemic review.
I could have linked to the book of John (as I already have done) and said, “That’s it. That’s our epistemological source. Have at it.” But then, how could you have known what the passages mean to me without my definitions and my commentaries?
Why don’t you just go ahead and post whatever it is that you’re itching to post, and I’ll let you know whether it (or a part of it) is appropriate now or whether it should wait. After all, since I’ve already given away my thesis, there’s no reason you shouldn’t give away a part of your pending argument.
OK, let me try again. The phrase above indicates that there are measurable criteria by which one can determine whether any particular person is or isn’t a religion politician. Please provide an operational definition of “religion politician”.
These threads are all about definitions, so now that you have presented a measurable construct, it would be useful to really nail down a definition of that construct.
Well, two things: (1) I’ve given you the criteria by which you may distinguish the ethics of a religion politician from someone who is not. It is in my post above. The reason I used an ethical differentiation as opposed to some other kind of differention is because, in this context, as we discussed extensively in Part II of the series, ethical differentiations are the only kinds we can observe. If it seems too obscure to find, then I will quote it out for you. I’ve often conceded that my expository skills are weak. I won’t fault you if you need the relevant portion reposted.
But second, I’m not necessarily offering “operational definitions”. (Thanks, by the way for the Wiki link. I’m not all that familiar with the jargon of science and mathematics, though I’ve read fairly extensively on the philosophy of science and the history of mathematics.)
What I’m offering, in the main, are not operational definitions, but definitions by genus and differentia. For the convenience of everyone, I will list some of the traditional rules involved in forumating these kinds of definitions, paraphrasing from the Wiki source:
[ol]
[li]Attributes that are essential must appear in the definition[/li][li]Definitions cannot be tautologies[/li][li]Definitions must apply to and only to the kind of thing they define[/li][li]Definitions must be transparent (though note that Wiki suggests that there can be exceptions, like “free will”) [/li][li]And finally, quoting from Wiki, “A definition should not be negative where it can be positive,” which amusingly violates its own self, although Wiki is careful to point out that there are certain exceptions, such as definining blindness as the absence of sight. (We have applied that sort of definition a couple of times, as with “death” and “spiritual blindness”)[/li][/ol]
Consider the definition I have supplied of a religion politician to be a definition by genus and differentia, rather than an operational definition. Keep in mind that it is a discussion about a belief system, and not a Russell and Whitehead mathematical proof. In fact, I’ve often referred to it as “a loose proof”. I will offer definitions and premises, along with my thesis (or hypothesis). I will then attempt to prove by the rules of ordinary first order propositional logic (and maybe, in rare instances, some of the higher logics) that my thesis is true.
I hope that helps you in your understanding.
So…I’m guessing by the silence that I’m not going to be getting any answers to the outstanding questions. Can’t say that I’m surprised…