Romans 16

[Hope]

What about tsunamis caused by undersea earthquakes? Surely these are circumstances (tectonic plate movements) where humanity isn't complicit.

Well done, Gordon - simply another example of what I'd already said.

Then 'God' becomes a redundant explanation.

No; if he created the earth (and the universe) as it is, as I believe he did, he is very much a relevant explanation.

[Hope]

The logic problem inherent in that is the notion of a loving God in heaven where there is no suffering who manufactures a place of suffering to put people into rather than heaven. Such a policy is not consistent with 'loving'.

torri, the logic problem inherent in your post is whether there is a separate physical entity called 'heaven'.  Remember that Jesus taught that the 'kingdom of heaven' is here and now - not sometime in the future and somewhere out there.

[Gordon]

Well done, Gordon - simply another example of what I'd already said.
No; if he created the earth (and the universe) as it is, as I believe he did, he is very much a relevant explanation.

Then you'll be able to justify the 'if' by providing a 'relevant explanation' that isn't a restatement of your personal beliefs, in order for you to avoid committing the relativist fallacy.

[Sebastian Toe]

torri, the logic problem inherent in your post is whether there is a separate physical entity called 'heaven'. 

It's only a logic problem if three is certainty one way or the other. So which is it?

[floo]

torri, the logic problem inherent in your post is whether there is a separate physical entity called 'heaven'.  Remember that Jesus taught that the 'kingdom of heaven' is here and now - not sometime in the future and somewhere out there.

And what did he mean by that comment?

[jeremyp]

And what did he mean by that comment?

Hemet there is no heaven, the "here and now" thing is just word salad. When you analyse it, it either means we are already in the Kingdom of Heaven or it's just platitudes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Sadly, even in these more 'natural' famines, there is often a human agent at work in the background.  For instance there are parts of the world where, whilst there is no war at present, the practice of kidnapping young men to serve as child soldiers (think of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda and Sudan in the 1990s) has left communities without the men to look after the land.  In some cases the young women were also taken to be used as 'recreational playthings'.  I don't think that Vlad is suggesting that all famines have a similar human cause, but many have this kind of hidden one.  Thinking of Africa, the current size of the Sahara Desert has a certain amount of hna influence to blame over the last few millennia.  Deforestation has occurred over a long period and this has allowed the soil to be lost and the sand to take over.

Well this is getting weird. Here's what Vlad actually claimed:

"People starve because people let them or as deliberate policy..."

No sign of a "sometimes' or an "on occasion" or similar there. Nope sirree - according to him, people starve because people let them or as deliberate policy and that's the beginning and end of it.

I then explained how bonkers this is as clearly starvation often happens when neither of these causes are in play.

Somewhat oddly to you then replied with some examples of famine being caused by human agency.

I replied to the effect that no-one denies that, but there are plenty of examples too in which there is no human agency.

Even more oddly, you then reply with another example of human causation.

As I say, weird. Leaving aside the man-made examples we agree anyway happen, would you care now to turn your attention to the examples when the victims have done nothing wrong at all - both in respect of Vlad's daftness and in the context of a supposedly loving god?

The earth is a dynamic entity and things like failure of monsoons, the eruption of volcanoes, earthquakes, etc, are all part of its natural cycle.  If you look at where the worst natural events occur, they are often on low-lying land (floods), poorly conditioned and husbanded land (famines), destruction of usable land - sometimes short-term (volcanic eruptions), etc.  'Ironically', all of these will happen, regardless of whether the earth is an accidental conglomeration of chemicals and space dust, or the creation of a loving God.

Seriously? Why on earth would this supposedly loving god create a home for his special creation in the first place so riven with these phenomena, only a small part of which is habitable at all?

Or, to put it another way, why would a god create a world that looks exactly as you'd expect it to look if there was no god? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Remember that Jesus taught that the 'kingdom of heaven' is here and now - not sometime in the future and somewhere out there.

Another example of your fondness for the reification fallacy. There may or may not have been a "Jesus" and he may or may not have claimed that "the kingdom of heaven is here and now", but you'd have all of your work ahead of you still if you wanted to demonstrate this to be the case, however much you claim that it was "taught" rather than merely asserted.

[Hope]

Hope,

Another example of your fondness for the reification fallacy. There may or may not have been a "Jesus" and he may or may not have claimed that "the kingdom of heaven is here and now", but you'd have all of your work ahead of you still if you wanted to demonstrate this to be the case, however much you claim that it was "taught" rather than merely asserted.

Sorry, bh, the 'reification fallacy', as you call it, is simply another way in which you avoid the issue.  I have increasingly noticed how you, and others here, rely on the 'fallacy' argument when you either can't or don't want to answer questions posed - a sure sign that this board is going the same way that several others I've had dealings with have gone. 

If you want people to believe that the naturalistic approach to life that you seem to favour is the only one around, it is for you to provide the evidence.  I'd remind you that over the years that thois board has been in existence, several folk, some no longer members, have shown the weaknesses of the arguments that the likes of you have offered.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Sorry, bh, the 'reification fallacy', as you call it, is simply another way in which you avoid the issue.

No, the reification fallacy involves taking a speculation or a conjecture, treating it as if it were a demonstrated fact and then using that (non) fact as your premise on which to establish an argument. Pointing that out isn't avoiding the issue, it is the issue. When your premise collapses, so does your argument. We can't just pretend that the premise is sound and then consider the argument on that basis.   

I have increasingly noticed how you, and others here, rely on the 'fallacy' argument when you either can't or don't want to answer questions posed - a sure sign that this board is going the same way that several others I've had dealings with have gone.

It's hard to imagine a statement more wrong than this. Fallacious arguments are always wrong arguments - that's what "fallacious argument" means. I'm quite willing to answer any question you like (unlike you incidentally who consistently avoids them), but when the question rests on one or several of the various fallacies you blithely commit then the question is nullified a priori. It's a bit like me saying for example, "I didn't walk on the cracks in the pavement for a week, Granny's chilblains got better, so how do explain my pavement crack cure then Mr Rationalist?". Your proper response would be just to point out that the premise was false - walking as I did had nothing to do with it - and not to bother with the rest.     

Only when you finally understand how your fallacious reasoning undermines you will you be able to grasp this point.

If you want people to believe that the naturalistic approach to life that you seem to favour is the only one around, it is for you to provide the evidence.

The evidence is simple enough: there's overwhelming shedloads of it for natural phenomena. and none whatsoever for supernatural alternatives. What more would you expect there to be if there are no supernatural phenomena?

I'd remind you that over the years that thois board has been in existence, several folk, some no longer members, have shown the weaknesses of the arguments that the likes of you have offered.

You can't "remind" someone of something that isn't true. Rather than your usual tactic of claiming something to have been demonstrated but never to be able to provide an example, why not at least attempt finally to support your claim by showing us where it's happened?

[Gordon]

Sorry, bh, the 'reification fallacy', as you call it, is simply another way in which you avoid the issue.  I have increasingly noticed how you, and others here, rely on the 'fallacy' argument when you either can't or don't want to answer questions posed - a sure sign that this board is going the same way that several others I've had dealings with have gone.

Nope - it is a sure sign that you continue to deploy fallacies, whereby your arguments fail because they are hopeless arguments that are bereft of merit. 

If you want people to believe that the naturalistic approach to life that you seem to favour is the only one around, it is for you to provide the evidence.

Not really: the only evidence currently available is naturalistic and is identified via methods appropriate to the phenomena being investigated. Since you claim non-naturalism the burden is on you to present the evidence and the method(s) used to obtain said evidence.

I'd remind you that over the years that thois board has been in existence, several folk, some no longer members, have shown the weaknesses of the arguments that the likes of you have offered.

Then you should be able to identify them and summarise their positions, since you clearly remember them - my money is on them being some of your fellow fallacy-merchants.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

  I have increasingly noticed how you, and others here, rely on the 'fallacy' argument when you either can't or don't want to answer questions posed

No that is you, that is.

Take the 1-1 thread. I made a claim, I supported it with an example that has clear evidence to support it. You were challenged to show a similar example of non naturalistic forces in action and how you knew them to be so. You made lots of assertions about love but your post was full of fallacious reasoning. Why should we accept your claims when the "logic" that they are based on can so clearly be shown to be erroneous?

Then when challenged you ignore the points raised and bring up a different example.

You are the only one avoiding answering

If you want people to believe that the naturalistic approach to life that you seem to favour is the only one around, it is for you to provide the evidence.

Strawman. We both agree, I assume, that naturalistic phenomena operate and we have methods for understanding them? We don't agree that there are non naturalistic ones around because they have never been demonstrated.  That view will of course change should you, or someone else, demonstrate them to exist. Your claim, your burden of proof.

[Hope]

No that is you, that is.

That's rich, coming from you, Stephen.

Take the 1-1 thread. I made a claim, I supported it with an example that has clear evidence to support it. You were challenged to show a similar example of non naturalistic forces in action and how you knew them to be so. You made lots of assertions about love but your post was full of fallacious reasoning. Why should we accept your claims when the "logic" that they are based on can so clearly be shown to be erroneous?

You certainly did support it with an example, but a single example doesn't prove anything.  All I did was point out at least two situations where naturalistic thinking doesn't provide satisfactory evidence.

Then when challenged you ignore the points raised and bring up a different example.

I 'ignored' your points as I'd previously addressed them anyway.

Strawman. We both agree, I assume, that naturalistic phenomena operate and we have methods for understanding them? We don't agree that there are non naturalistic ones around because they have never been demonstrated.  That view will of course change should you, or someone else, demonstrate them to exist. Your claim, your burden of proof.

We may both agree that naturalistic phenomena operate, but that isn't the underlying issue.  That is how, perhaps even why do they operate.  OK, I may have been getting a tad confused with threads - I have made a number of posts on the 'What's it all about ... Alfie' thread.  I often have more than one thread open at a time - in different tabs.

Just because the naturalistic process fits with interpretations and understandings that we, as humans, have, it doesn't mean that they are the correct interpretations.  Nor that they are necessarily the only interpretations.

[Gordon]

We may both agree that naturalistic phenomena operate, but that isn't the underlying issue.  That is how, perhaps even why do they operate.

'How' is a reasonable question, where to answer it requires a naturalistic method that is appropriate to the phenomena. 'Why', however, is much more problematic in terms of being a valid question in the first place since it presumes an answer, and this may be begging the question if those asking it do so on the assumption that their divine purpose conclusion is the answer they prefer.

For instance if I ask 'how are rainbows formed' the naturalistic 'how' can be explained to me but if I ask 'why are there rainbows' this seems like a invalid question: replace 'rainbows' with 'love' or 'jellyfish and 'why' still makes no sense whatsoever.

Just because the naturalistic process fits with interpretations and understandings that we, as humans, have, it doesn't mean that they are the correct interpretations.

Science is provisional even though some established 'interpretations and understandings' have copious supporting evidence, thus the current science around the design of aeroplanes seems sufficiently 'correct' to be going on with for now but may well be changed by new discoveries (such as when I patent my anti-gravity emulsion: matt only, but in a choice of colours).
 

Nor that they are necessarily the only interpretations.

Perhaps not, but any alternative interpretations will require supporting method/evidence on the same basis that some 'heavier than air things can fly' does: and when your alternative proposal involves non-naturalistic assumptions this is where your reasoning is fallacious, since it seems you don't have anything resembling a method on which to base your claims.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

That's rich, coming from you, Stephen.

Stop it now. You're embarrassing yourself.

You certainly did support it with an example, but a single example doesn't prove anything.

Quite. Why then quote single examples of man-made famines in an attempt to demonstrate that there aren't plenty of examples of causes that are nothing to do with humankind?

All I did was point out at least two situations where naturalistic thinking doesn't provide satisfactory evidence.

No you didn't. Why bother lying when your lies are so easily checked?

I 'ignored' your points as I'd previously addressed them anyway.

To my knowledge you've never addressed any of the points that undo you. If you genuinely think otherwise, why not show just for once us where you did that?

We may both agree that naturalistic phenomena operate, but that isn't the underlying issue.  That is how, perhaps even why do they operate.  OK, I may have been getting a tad confused with threads - I have made a number of posts on the 'What's it all about ... Alfie' thread.  I often have more than one thread open at a time - in different tabs.

"Why" is a meaningless question until and unless you can finally demonstrate a causal agency to care about and to determine what that "why" might be. You're begging the question - another fallacy.

Just because the naturalistic process fits with interpretations and understandings that we, as humans, have, it doesn't mean that they are the correct interpretations.  Nor that they are necessarily the only interpretations.

No it doesn't. What it does mean though it that they're the only interpretations for which there's a method of any kind to suggest that they offer working truths. You can speculate about other interpretations - your god, leprechauns, whatever - as much as you wish, but speculations they must remain until and unless you finally propose a method to elevate them beyond that.

Have you any sense at all of how out of your depth you are here?

Anything?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

That's rich, coming from you, Stephen.

Ok then link to a post where I have run away or not responded to your post.

You certainly did support it with an example, but a single example doesn't prove anything.

It demonstrated my claim to be justified. That was all it was meant to do.

  All I did was point out at least two situations where naturalistic thinking doesn't provide satisfactory evidence.

Well some data was presented that suggested that your way of thinking i.e. that chemicals in the brain are a symptom of a phenomena rather than its cause, is the wrong way around.

You didn't provide any evidence of a non naturalistic phenomena at work though, hence the questions as to why you conflate no current scientific explanation with positive evidence for non naturalistic phenomena.

I 'ignored' your points as I'd previously addressed them anyway.

You have not. As is clear to anyone who reads the thread.

Just because the naturalistic process fits with interpretations and understandings that we, as humans, have, it doesn't mean that they are the correct interpretations.  Nor that they are necessarily the only interpretations.

Well go ahead and demonstrate these alternatives then.

[Ricky Spanish]

For many, this is a pretty boring chapter at the end of a highly contentious and therefore interesting epistle.  It is arguably the most important epistle of the whole of the New Testament as it includes both doctrine and advice.........


Of the 27 people Paul mentions, at least 9 of them are women.  What is more, the first two to be mentioned are women. 

Phoebe

Priscilla

Mary

Junias/Junia. 

Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Persis.

Julia and the sister of Nereu

Clearly, the early church was not an organisation which ignored women in its leadership.

I accept that since the middle of the 1st millennium - especially following the Synod of Whitby (664) - the church has been predominantly male-run.

So remind us.

What was the crux of your OP?

[Hope]

So remind us.

What was the crux of your OP?

If you'd read the OP properly, TtB, you'd have seen this one-line paragraph towards the end:

Clearly, the early church was not an organisation which ignored women in its leadership.

By not reading the OP properly, you hae shown yourself to be the barbarian you would like us to believe you to be.   

[Ricky Spanish]

Nonsense Nae Hope.

You are correct in yer assumption that Women were an important inclusion in the church Saul created.

Why did Catholicism suppress that ideal?

[Hope]

You are correct in yer assumption that Women were an important inclusion in the church Saul created.

Which church was that, Thrud? 

Why did Catholicism suppress that ideal?

Having never been a Catholic, I'm afraid I can't answer that.

[Ricky Spanish]

So what was the point of Saul writing to the Romans to expect his arrival.. and why put the greetings at the end of his letter instead of the beginning?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nucs7hAi02k

[Hope]

So what was the point of Saul writing to the Romans to expect his arrival.. and why put the greetings at the end of his letter instead of the beginning?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nucs7hAi02k

Ricky, as I am sure you are aware, it was normal to place an introductory greeting at the beginning of a letter - it still is, even today - see Romans 1:7.  It was also, and remains, common-practice to sum up a letter with greetings to people that the writer knows but hasn't been able to - or needed to - refer to directly during the letter.

As for "what was the point of Saul writing to the Romans to expect his arrival", if you look at the beginning of the letter 1: 8-15, he is explaining why he hasn't already arrived.  I assume that you appreciate that if someone was/is unable to attend an event, or hoped to visit someone but was/is prevented by some other circumstance, that writing a letter - be that physically or electronically - was/is normal good manners.

[Hope]

Quote from: Thrud the Barbarian on August 13, 2016, 08:26:59 AM

    You are correct in yer assumption that Women were an important inclusion in the church Saul created.

Which church was that, Thrud? 

Bumped for Thrud's attention.

[ippy]

Which church was that, Thrud? 
Bumped for Thrud's attention.

Quote from: Thrud the Barbarian on August 13, 2016, 08:26:59 AM

    You are correct in your assumption that Women were an important inclusion in the church Saul created.
Which church was that, Thrud? 
Bumped for Thrud's attention.

Is there some sort of importance to this post of yours Hope?

ippy

[Hope]

Is there some sort of importance to this post of yours Hope?

ippy

Yes, ippy.  I was wondering what church Thrud believes that Saul created.  Is he talking about the various congregations that Saul (aka Paul) was involved in establishing around the Mediterranean, or is he talking about a church that Saul (aka Paul) created - a theory that has been doing the rounds for a century or two, but for which there is limited evidence.