junglecat

You finally got it! Bravo! Yep. I agree. I would unfold that truth with different words than you, but I agree. Yeah, and that is inextricably bound up in the divinity of Christ and the truth of the Bible. Read through the myth of Oedipus and Dionysus.

I feel the exact same way! I know. You hit the nail on the head.

Hanlon's Razor indeed! Don't infer malice when stupidity makes more sense. I still don't see any disagreement in the definitions. I wrote on the first page of this thread: "I actually agree with your definitions. Your definition of a Christian as someone who adheres to Christianity is correct, however it doesn't say anything about what a Christian does in practical terms. Also, I completely agree, a Christian is one who believes in the divinity of Christ. However, this is nonsensical taken out of the context of the ancient world where people believed in the divinity of the gods of war, the gods that use violence to contain violence." So what's the problem? You disagree with me adding the practical element of Christianity or the cultural context of divinity? And then I am still left with trying to understand what you wrote: "I've said repeatedly on this forum and in other venues that judicious use of violence to quell violence can work, and that the circumstance that justifies the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent, and that the circumstance that justifies the *threat* of lethal force is to quell felonious conduct." 1) were these your own thoughts that you wrote down? 2) does *threat* mean only a threat and no chance of violence? (an empty threat) 3) when you wrote, "We have no mechanism to directly sense or measure another's sense of justification for an activity" does that include your own thoughts on the justification for violent threats or actions? 4) when you wrote, "It doesn't matter if the other person thinks they are justified." does this mean that only your thoughts matter? If you don't want to clear it up, that's fine. I'll chalk it up to fuzzy thinking or some reasoning I can't figure out. The last thing I would do is think you're being "disingenuous".

Why would you assume that when I told you exactly what it is evidence of?

I'm sure he understood that in context I wasn't calling him violent. That's just a figure of speech.

Can you be more specific? I clearly stated it a couple of posts above. What specifically don't you understand?

All this because I used the word "simply". It's really not worth it.

"Objective facts do not depend on a mind for existence, but you are applying it to a concept." Is this what you mean? Is this your definition? This is from Wikipedia. Does it sound right to you? Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence. In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence. The parts of a legal case which are not in controversy are known, in general, as the "facts of the case." Beyond any facts that are undisputed, a judge or jury is usually tasked with being a trier of fact for the other issues of a case. Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes), which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence necessary to decide a case. Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method. In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistemology, which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired.

I'll define anything you want. Shoot.

The Bible in general and the passion of Christ as the culmination of the myth is told from the point of view of the victim. All other archaic myths are told from the point of view of the mob. The Bible decodes mythology. This is the central evidence that points to the anthropological truth of the gospel. Stefan talks about the power of the state, right? It gets it's power through violence, correct? This is the old myth, the archaic gods all do this, they bring peace and order through violence. Christ says "I give you peace, not as the world gives it" (through violence) The hyper awareness of victims in our modern culture is a concrete form of Christianity. Imagine going to a Roman functionary 2000 years ago and complaining that you were wronged by the state. They would be completely amazed and say "You deserve to die for saying that. Crucify him. Throw him to the lions."

Neeeel, I have been presenting it from the very start. I know you've had a hard time understanding what I am saying but surely you have grasped something of what I have said so far. Is there anything you've understood? Or perhaps you can pick one thing I've said that you find puzzling and we can go into detail? Tell me, are you at all familiar with Greek or Roman mythology? Have you ever read the New Testament? It's all well and good to reject all gods but if you don't know what they are about in the first place you don't know what you are rejecting. I'm not talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm talking about texts that are the foundation of our culture. You need to be a little more specific otherwise I'll just direct you to the top of the conversation and tell you to reread it.

I'm using 'trigger' in the modern euphemistic sense. I am not manipulating you. I believe it was Shirgall who pointed out that one can never know for certain another's intent. You seem to think you are the exception to the rule.

I love your posts! You actually speak reasonably! I am so curious as to your Christian take on violence. Does Jesus condone the "right" (whatever that means) to retributive violence? To "just war theory"? What about the "right" to self-defense? If so, how did he show it in the New Testament?

Evidence of the anthropological truth of the gospel. To see the divinity of Christ in context with the divinity of the gods that ruled the world at that time- and that still do to a large extent. I'm talking about the gods of the ancient world that had violence as their primary ordering function, the mechanism of the scapegoat. This is the same god that Stefan rails against.

Thank you for your comments! They are very encouraging. Have you read any René Girard? I think his theory is a major breakthrough in Christian thought. The problem atheists have with Christianity is that they equate it with belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a phantom, an eidolon. If they can see the anthropological truth of the gospel and they are truly thinking critically then lights may go on, pennies may drop. Of course I am reminded of that scene in the New Testament where the resurrected Christ appears and some still doubt. To some, no amount of evidence will be enough. The fact that they deny so vehemently is very touching. It's like trying to save a wild animal trapped in a hole. They do bite.

Maybe. I don't think the difference is all that significant really. The fact is his ideology is almost universal at this point in history. This is evidence of the Holy Spirit working in the world today. Of course, those pesky weeds have grown up all the while. I'm still curious about your thoughts on salvation. I asked you if your idea of salvation includes saving humanity from an unending cycle of escalating retributive violence? I'm not discounting a post-death judgement and heaven and hell scenario. I'm asking does salvation have anything to say to humanity on the anthropological level here and now?

If you think what I have said is unreasonable, why not explain how? I'm still left seriously wondering about what you said because you haven't answered my questions: "I've said repeatedly on this forum and in other venues that judicious use of violence to quell violence can work, and that the circumstance that justifies the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent, and that the circumstance that justifies the *threat* of lethal force is to quell felonious conduct." 1) were these your own thoughts that you wrote down? 2) does *threat* mean only a threat and no chance of violence? (an empty threat) 3) when you wrote, "We have no mechanism to directly sense or measure another's sense of justification for an activity" does that include your own thoughts on the justification for violent threats or actions? 4) when you wrote, "It doesn't matter if the other person thinks they are justified." does this mean that only your thoughts matter? I can only assume your silence is an admission that what you said makes no sense.

What you quoted was not a definition because it goes too far. By including the prerequisite that it is verified by facts or mathematical calculation it paints itself into a corner. The opinion of the author can not be verified by facts or mathematical calculations. Compare this to the Cambridge definition: in a way that is not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings; fairly: This is precisely what I mean by Stefan being objectively Christian. His end goals, his practice in life, is in line with Christianity and yet his personal beliefs or feelings are not involved. He does not think of himself as a Christian, he does not feel or believe himself to be a Christian. You assert this is not true and I am being dishonest at worst or mistaken at best. I am neither. You, on the other hand, are definitively wrong about what you call a definition.

Is this intended as a response to my question about the foundation of atheistic rights? I doesn't seem to help but maybe I am missing something. Can you elaborate?

You told me it was the dictionary definition. Then later you said, "ok, the link I sent wasnt a dictionary" You're so quick to judge my motives but so slow to admit your own blatant mistakes. That's not very objective of you.

Neeeel, were you being dishonest when you said your definition was from the dictionary or is that only my feeling?

OED 1(Of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: Merriam Webster based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world dictionary.com something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: cambridge objectively: in a way that is not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings; fairly: Stefan's personal beliefs are atheistic, but his views, particularly on the subject of violence, are definitively Christian. Subjectively he does not recognize the divinity of Christ but objectively he holds the divinity of Christ over and above the deity of the ancient world, the god that rules through violence. Where he needs to develop his thinking is in the area of self-defensive "rights". For example, I know what "rights" meant to the writers of the Constitution, that they are granted by God and the laws or the government do not grant them. The laws only limit what the government can do. What I don't know is the definition of "rights" from an atheistic perspective. Maybe he has verbalized this somewhere but I haven't come across it. Can anyone in the forum help?

Since when do dictionaries have comment sections underneath a blog post?

Well, that's not the definition in my dictionary. The link you sent was not a dictionary nor did it conform to any dictionary definition I know of. In any case, it's a self contradictory.