No true apatheist

[Gordon]

"Verily, I am saying to you, If you should not be turning and becoming as little children, you may by no means be entering into the kingdom of the heavens."   Matt 18/3

I think that pretty much sums up what we've see from Vlad's efforts here: adopt a simplistic and childish outlook and Christianity will seem acceptable - but don't dare apply more mature thinking.

Since it seems this slice of 'scripture' includes an encouragement towards dumbing-down maybe it is no great surprise that some of what we see from those proselytising Christianity comes across as infantile.

   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think that pretty much sums up what we've see from Vlad's efforts here: adopt a simplistic and childish outlook and Christianity will seem acceptable - but don't dare apply more mature thinking.

Since it seems this slice of 'scripture' includes an encouragement towards dumbing-down maybe it is no great surprise that some of what we see from those proselytising Christianity comes across as infantile.

   

just to put a bit of context to this:


Bible > 1 Corinthians > Chapter 14 > Verse 20


1 Corinthians 14:20
(New International Version)
Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And what it is that trying to prove? Quoting something from the bible doesn't make it true.

But it does alleviate straw manning and tempers cherry picking.

[Gordon]

just to put a bit of context to this:


Bible > 1 Corinthians > Chapter 14 > Verse 20


1 Corinthians 14:20
(New International Version)
Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.

Thank you for pointing out that some examples of 'scripture' are contradictory - Matthew 18/3 advises 'be childlike' and Corinthians 14/20 advises 'don't be childlike' - can't see that highlighting this contradiction helps your cause much.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thank you for pointing out that some examples of 'scripture' are contradictory - Matthew 18/3 advises 'be childlike' and Corinthians 14/20 advises 'don't be childlike' - can't see that highlighting this contradiction helps your cause much.

Not contradictory. 'Be as a little child' in respect of the Kingdom is really the same injunction as 'Be infants in regard to evil.' Matthew does not say anything about being immature in thinking and Paul makes thinking in a mature way an explicit must. You are reading 'in' a contradiction that isn't there.

[Gordon]

Not contradictory. 'Be as a little child' in respect of the Kingdom is really the same injunction as 'Be infants in regard to evil.' Matthew does not say anything about being immature in thinking and Paul makes thinking in a mature way an explicit must. You are reading 'in' a contradiction that isn't there.

Really!

I'd have thought that encouraging adults to adopt an infantile approach to 'evil' (whatever that means) would in itself be infantile advice.

Of course, not all of us set much store by what the NT says anyway - but the two quotes of 'scripture' posted this morning do read as being contradictory no matter how much you try to go down the apologetics route.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really!

I'd have thought that encouraging adults to adopt an infantile approach to 'evil' (whatever that means) would in itself be infantile advice.

Of course, not all of us set much store by what the NT says anyway - but the two quotes of 'scripture' posted this morning do read as being contradictory no matter how much you try to go down the apologetics route.

Infant is not infantile. Just like child -like is not childish. I think Paul is alluding to innocence rather than participation in evil and calling it ''adult''.

[Gordon]

Infant is not infantile. Just like child -like is not childish. I think Paul is alluding to innocence rather than participation in evil and calling it ''adult''.

Of course, Vlad - one of the problems I see with those who take 'scripture' too seriously is a tendency to rationalise it as Humpty Dumpty might - so that is means whatever you prefer it mean, which seems to me a core aspect of 'theology'.

Hence, for me anyway, taking into account the risks I've often mentioned, the NT is meaningless anyway.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course, Vlad - one of the problems I see with those who take 'scripture' too seriously is a tendency to rationalise it as Humpty Dumpty might - so that is means whatever you prefer it mean, which seems to me a core aspect of 'theology'.

Hence, for me anyway, taking into account the risks I've often mentioned, the NT is meaningless anyway.

But Gordon you are carrying on as though a dillitante approach to the interpretation of things you don't like is somehow mature. You've just had it demonstrated that you did not understand the context of Be like little children and were completely ignorant of ''In understanding or in thinking be mature'' in Corinthians.
Why should we then take it that you are in a position to dispense advice on scripture?

[Gordon]

But Gordon you are carrying on as though a dillitante approach to the interpretation of things you don't like is somehow mature. You've just had it demonstrated that you did not understand the context of Be like little children and were completely ignorant of ''In understanding or in thinking be mature'' in Corinthians.
Why should we then take it that you are in a position to dispense advice on scripture?

I can certainly point out where bits of it seem to be contradictory - but then, as I said, I don't much care what it says anyway since I don't regard it as anything other than a collection of risk-laden ancient anecdotes of uncertain provenance that contain bits of unbelievable fantasy.

So, if you've decided on going down the 'Courtier's Reply' route - I wouldn't bother.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I can certainly point out where bits of it seem to be contradictory - but then, as I said, I don't much care what it says anyway since I don't regard it as anything other than a collection of risk-laden ancient anecdotes of uncertain provenance that contain bits of unbelievable fantasy.

So, if you've decided on going down the 'Courtier's Reply' route - I wouldn't bother.
 

The courtier's reply has to establish that the king is naked. For you to claim a Courtiers reply you have to demonstrate there is no God. Either the courtiers reply is another mislabelling or it proceeds itself from a fallacy
And I see you've gone down the fallacy of modernity route.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty

[Gordon]

The courtier's reply has to establish that the king is naked. For you to claim a Courtiers reply you have to demonstrate there is no God.

All I need do is point out is that you are implying that because I don't immerse myself in the content of the NT then I'm unable to offer criticism of it, such as earlier when I noted that two items of 'scripture' quoted in this thread were contradictory.
 

Either the courtiers reply is another mislabelling or it proceeds itself from a fallacy

Since you've said that by accusing you of deploying a Courtier's Reply I need to "demonstrate there is no God" I think it is safe to say that you don't understand the Courier's Reply.

And I see you've gone down the fallacy of modernity route.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty

Then you need to visit Specsavers urgently.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All I need do is point out is that you are implying that because I don't immerse myself in the content of the NT then I'm unable to offer criticism of it,

No you can offer criticism of it but our necessity to take what you say seriously is undermined by your limited expertise as demonstrated by your demonstrable error in interpretation. I believe this situation is called the Dunning Kruger effect where you are willing to put up your own expertise against someone with the skills. 

Since you've said that by accusing you of deploying a Courtier's Reply I need to "demonstrate there is no God"

Well the term courtiers reply is drawn from a piece of fiction so you should, if you are to be consistent, rejected particularly since it is an old story. However since you want this story then we know that the King is naked. You just act as if there is no God, and we know the tailors are crooked. You just suspect religious experts of crookedness.

So the term courtiers reply is either a mislabel or you are saying you know God doesn't exist. I think Dunning Kruger actually did for Courtiers reply.

                             
                                 

[Gordon]

No you can offer criticism of it but our necessity to take what you say seriously is undermined by your limited expertise as demonstrated by your demonstrable error in interpretation. I believe this situation is called the Dunning Kruger effect where you are willing to put up your own expertise against someone with the skills.   Well the term courtiers reply is drawn from a piece of fiction so you should, if you are to be consistent, rejected particularly since it is an old story. However since you want this story then we know that the King is naked. You just act as if there is no God, and we know the tailors are crooked. You just suspect religious experts of crookedness.

So the term courtiers reply is either a mislabel or you are saying you know God doesn't exist. I think Dunning Kruger actually did for Courtiers reply.                                 

Not even wrong.

P.S. I sorted the quotes in your previous post.

[ekim]

And what it is that trying to prove? Quoting something from the bible doesn't make it true.

It wasn't trying to prove anything.  It was a saying attributed to Jesus which seemed to support Gordon's view about humans not being born with sin.  It seems to suggest that small children were more 'pure of heart' and less motivated by the self centredness of adults and adolescents.  It is a theme which appears in the words of others from other backgrounds.

Upanishads   Let a Brahmin reject erudition and live as a child

Black Elk   (Holy Man of Oglala Sioux)  Grown men may learn from very little children, for the hearts of little children are pure, and, therefore, the Great Spirit may show to them many things which older people miss.

Sri Ramakrishna [19th C Hindu saint] So long as one does not become simple like a child one does not get divine illumination.

Takuan (16th Century Zen Abbot) Zen is to have the heart and soul of a little child.

[ProfessorDavey]

But it does alleviate straw manning and tempers cherry picking.

But surely picking a single quote from a huge tone like the bible (or even jus the gospels) which are regularly self contradictory is the very epitope of cherry picking is it not.

[ProfessorDavey]

It wasn't trying to prove anything.  It was a saying attributed to Jesus which seemed to support Gordon's view about humans not being born with sin.

But if that is the case it demonstrates the very essence of the self contradiction within christianity - a religion which is fundamentally based on a notion that all humans are with sin from birth (due to the fall, as described in genesis) and are therefore in need of salvation and redemption that can only be achieved through Jesus. If humans are born without sin then the whole purpose of christianity falls apart as only some (those who become sinful) would need salvation and redemption.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But if that is the case it demonstrates the very essence of the self contradiction within christianity - a religion which is fundamentally based on a notion that all humans are with sin from birth (due to the fall, as described in genesis) and are therefore in need of salvation and redemption that can only be achieved through Jesus. If humans are born without sin then the whole purpose of christianity falls apart as only some (those who become sinful) would need salvation and redemption.

How are you defining sin here? Are you not aware that the church did without the ruthless theology of Augustine for several centuries and that fact alone torpedoes your thesis of the centrality of original sin. Were you not aware of ''through Adam but through christ'' theology namely the several references to Christ's overturning of the effects of Adam. I'll admit that leaves us with the dismissal of Adult and deliberate sin as ''i'm only human''. That's an original sin theory turned on it's head and used as an excuse.

At the end of the day only you and God know your real spiritual and moral standing so you need to divest yourself of being a member of a society that doesn't care for religion and even being of a chosen people or your 'nation having a manifest destiny'....It's just you and God at the end of the day.

[jeremyp]

I dunno but I did request you forget about it since I think you need to be concerned at your own deliberate sin. Original sin not universally held and only really formulated and promoted by Augustine. Scripturally Christ reverses any thing Adam ever did which leaves us with our own sin.

What seems certain is that the idea of original sin surfaces in the excuse ''I'm only human'' which is really inherited sin warmed over for non religious consumption.

I've always understood that "I'm only human" is a colloquialism meaning "I'm fallible". Is it really your contention that "original sin" is a term that means "humans are fallible"? Because, if so, why does God prescribe such extreme punishment for a propensity to make mistakes? Bear in mind, that it was God made us fallible, according to Christians.

[jeremyp]

But your bible has, as a central concept, the notion that individual people are sinful and guilty regardless of whether they have done anything wrong themselves.

You might be surprised, but this is not strictly speaking true. Original sin was a concept invented by Christians after all the canonical texts were written.

[jeremyp]

The courtier's reply has to establish that the king is naked.

Nope. The emperor is naked. The courtier's reply is to claim you can't say the emperor is naked unless you are an expert in tailoring.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope. The emperor is naked. The courtier's reply is to claim you can't say the emperor is naked unless you are an expert in tailoring.

The emperor is naked, we know that from the person telling the story. We know how the king ended up naked and we know that the tailors were wronguns.

So Myers interpretation is that there is no god and therefore no work has been done to explain claims of God, Oh and religious people are wronguns.
.
Apparently Myers fell out of love with Dawkins soon after.

And then atheists started to appeal to ''Dunning Kruger'' and ''pigeon chess'' which actually find the opposite of the Courtiers reply argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've always understood that "I'm only human" is a colloquialism meaning "I'm fallible". Is it really your contention that "original sin" is a term that means "humans are fallible"? Because, if so, why does God prescribe such extreme punishment for a propensity to make mistakes? Bear in mind, that it was God made us fallible, according to Christians.

Well continual wrong doing without repentance and no end of site in the commission of sin by Johnson and inveterate Tory voters can hardly be called a mistake and yet as we say here we are, after years of the ''Good bloke'' hypothesis, a genuine and unmistakeable evil bastard whose actions have cost thousands of lives and the populace backed him until it seems he threatened their pockets.

These are deliberate acts Jeremy.

On the other hand you seem to favour an original sin theory. If everyone really is a good bloke what is the limit and nature of their fallibility?

[ekim]

But if that is the case it demonstrates the very essence of the self contradiction within christianity - a religion which is fundamentally based on a notion that all humans are with sin from birth (due to the fall, as described in genesis) and are therefore in need of salvation and redemption that can only be achieved through Jesus. If humans are born without sin then the whole purpose of christianity falls apart as only some (those who become sinful) would need salvation and redemption.

That seems to be the problem with organised religions.  A power base is set up which decides on interpretation of scripture and what scripture is admissible and either opponents are imprisoned or executed or there are schisms like that between Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholics and Protestants.  It is not much different in Islam.  Jesus wasn't a Christian, he was a Jew who criticised the Jewish authorities and paid the penalty for deviation.

As regards 'sin', the Greek word in the New Testament is, I believe, 'hamartia' which I think translates as 'missing the mark'.  I suspect that the 'mark' is 'Heaven' an inner state of joy or bliss and that a small child (at least in those days) represented that state before egotistical training kicks in presenting ample opportunities to 'miss the mark' or sin.  Jesus perhaps tried to teach a way to stay attuned to that inner state through metanoia (beyond mind) which is unfortunately translated as 'repent'.

Where is the sin? ..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEeizaWjdXw

[jeremyp]

Well continual wrong doing without repentance and no end of site in the commission of sin by Johnson and inveterate Tory voters can hardly be called a mistake

Are you now claiming that only Tory ministers are sinners?

I think you should take a few days off and think about things very hard to try to get your story straight.

These are deliberate acts Jeremy.

Earlier you equated sinning with being fallible. Mistakes are not deliberate acts.