"Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
received payment for his work."
Story B:
"Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
received payment for his work."
Identical, right? We can assume the two stories are talking about the
same person. But what if we make a minor change to Story B?
"Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because the
rivers did the work."
Are we now talking about two different people? I think most people
would say no, we are not. We are still talking about the same person
but are disagreeing about the details. There exists an entity
"Hercules" with a True Identity. The above stories are possible
represenations of that.
But how far can we take this? Through continuous subsequent
modifications, Story B could become something like:
"Bob, the brother of Fred, had to go to the store to get some milk and
bread. When he got back, his wife was mad because he bought the wrong
brand of bread."
I'm sure we can all agree that it is possible to get from the first
incarnation of Story B to the above through a series of minor changes.
Yet I doubt that any would agree that Story A and B are still talking
about the same proposed entity. The explanation that we are talking
about the same thing, but disagreeing on the details, no longer holds.
But at what point do the stories stop referencing the same thing? Is
it tied to the name? Unlikely. If Story B was:
"Bob, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
received payment for his work."
We would quickly realize we are talking about who is more commonly
known as Hercules.
So where is the breakdown?
This, I think, is a version of the Sorites paradox (the addition of a
single rock cannot turn a hill into a mountain, nor can the removal of
a single rock turn a mountain into a hill, but yet we can go from one
to the other by adding or removing enough rocks).
It also shows that the identity of something does not rest solely
within the name, but in its entire description. We are not simply our
name, but also what we do and say.
We allow for some wiggle room in the descrepancies of stories because
we understand that the descriptions are not complete and the details
we have may not be accurate or true. But this wiggle room is not
quantifiable or discrete, which allows for the paradox.
The paradox can be resolved by eliminating this wiggle room and
adhering strictly to a single description.
If the teller of Story A did this, then Story B stops describing the
same entity the second **any detail changes, no matter how trivial**.
The teller of Story A may say something like, "No, you're wrong about
some of those details." but the ultimatle implication of this strict
interpretation is that they are **talking about two separate and
distinct entities**.
What does this have to do with anything?
Well, let's swap Hercules for God. Now, some Christians are of the
line that there is no wiggle room. You get it 100% right, or you'll
burn. Thus effectively destroys Christianity because it basically
means that each denomination and sect with its own interpretation are
actually talking about multiple different Gods with different
descriptions. They aren't believing in the "same" God.
What happens if we allow for wiggle room? Well that just introduces
the above Sorites paradox. We lack the ability to definitive say what
is and is not a correct description of God. This also destroys
Christianity because any description of anything could be a
description of God that just differs on the details.
If both options undermine Christianity, then how does Christianity
persist? In the first case, there is collusion. Christians with strict
interpretations are willing to over look internal conflicts to fight
greater enemies and get the core "message" of Christianity spread. In
the second case, just as we are able to distinguish between hills and
mountains despite the existence of the paradox, we can still
distinguish between Christians and non-Christians despite the
existence of the paradox. At least, for the extreme ends of the
spectrum. When you get to the middle grey area, each individual would
have their own boundary line they use to make that determination, but
this line is arbitrary.
In short, these problems are simply ignored. It's as if there is an
unspoken agreement between those whose stories are similar: "I believe
that you're wrong, but I'll ignore that so we can gang up on people we
agree are wrong-er."
Of course, once the wrong-est people are out of the way, they'll turn
on each other.
This is very much related to my belief that all god-beliefs revolve
around virtual gods. Different believers selectively approximate
others' expressed beliefs and those others do the same until it
appears that they agree. In actual fact, if questioned closely enough,
the agreement disappears.
> Take two stories:
> Story A:
> "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> received payment for his work."
> Story B:
> "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> received payment for his work."
> Identical, right? We can assume the two stories are talking about the
> same person. But what if we make a minor change to Story B?
> "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because the
> rivers did the work."
> Are we now talking about two different people? I think most people
> would say no, we are not. We are still talking about the same person
> but are disagreeing about the details. There exists an entity
> "Hercules" with a True Identity. The above stories are possible
> represenations of that.
> But how far can we take this? Through continuous subsequent
> modifications, Story B could become something like:
> "Bob, the brother of Fred, had to go to the store to get some milk and
> bread. When he got back, his wife was mad because he bought the wrong
> brand of bread."
> I'm sure we can all agree that it is possible to get from the first
> incarnation of Story B to the above through a series of minor changes.
> Yet I doubt that any would agree that Story A and B are still talking
> about the same proposed entity. The explanation that we are talking
> about the same thing, but disagreeing on the details, no longer holds.
> But at what point do the stories stop referencing the same thing? Is
> it tied to the name? Unlikely. If Story B was:
> "Bob, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> received payment for his work."
> We would quickly realize we are talking about who is more commonly
> known as Hercules.
> So where is the breakdown?
> This, I think, is a version of the Sorites paradox (the addition of a
> single rock cannot turn a hill into a mountain, nor can the removal of
> a single rock turn a mountain into a hill, but yet we can go from one
> to the other by adding or removing enough rocks).
> It also shows that the identity of something does not rest solely
> within the name, but in its entire description. We are not simply our
> name, but also what we do and say.
> We allow for some wiggle room in the descrepancies of stories because
> we understand that the descriptions are not complete and the details
> we have may not be accurate or true. But this wiggle room is not
> quantifiable or discrete, which allows for the paradox.
> The paradox can be resolved by eliminating this wiggle room and
> adhering strictly to a single description.
> If the teller of Story A did this, then Story B stops describing the
> same entity the second **any detail changes, no matter how trivial**.
> The teller of Story A may say something like, "No, you're wrong about
> some of those details." but the ultimatle implication of this strict
> interpretation is that they are **talking about two separate and
> distinct entities**.
> What does this have to do with anything?
> Well, let's swap Hercules for God. Now, some Christians are of the
> line that there is no wiggle room. You get it 100% right, or you'll
> burn. Thus effectively destroys Christianity because it basically
> means that each denomination and sect with its own interpretation are
> actually talking about multiple different Gods with different
> descriptions. They aren't believing in the "same" God.
> What happens if we allow for wiggle room? Well that just introduces
> the above Sorites paradox. We lack the ability to definitive say what
> is and is not a correct description of God. This also destroys
> Christianity because any description of anything could be a
> description of God that just differs on the details.
> If both options undermine Christianity, then how does Christianity
> persist? In the first case, there is collusion. Christians with strict
> interpretations are willing to over look internal conflicts to fight
> greater enemies and get the core "message" of Christianity spread. In
> the second case, just as we are able to distinguish between hills and
> mountains despite the existence of the paradox, we can still
> distinguish between Christians and non-Christians despite the
> existence of the paradox. At least, for the extreme ends of the
> spectrum. When you get to the middle grey area, each individual would
> have their own boundary line they use to make that determination, but
> this line is arbitrary.
> In short, these problems are simply ignored. It's as if there is an
> unspoken agreement between those whose stories are similar: "I believe
> that you're wrong, but I'll ignore that so we can gang up on people we
> agree are wrong-er."
> Of course, once the wrong-est people are out of the way, they'll turn
> on each other.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=.
-- "The will to win, the desire to succeed, the urge to reach your full potential...
these are the keys that will unlock the door to personal excellence."
[Confucius]
>Now, some Christians are of the
> line that there is no wiggle room. You get it 100% right, or you'll
> burn.
I appreciate your comparison, but I take issue with your statement
here. Christians, generally speaking, would focus upon faith in
Christ as a primary condition for salvation. Granted, this is
expressed differently in religious practices such as penance in the
Catholic church or prayer to icons in the Orthodox, but the highest
priority is Christ, not the ritual.
If you research Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox traditions we all
agree on the centrality of Christ and therefore it is not exactly
right that 100% of all of the many other doctrines must be adhered
to. There is considerable laxing between the major three in
recognizing that there are different ways to "do Christianity" but
only one person of Christ who is the center of all of our corporate
worship.
Since God has revealed Scripture to us, there is considerable room for
interpretation. You are right to acknowledge we have different ways
of understanding specific passages about God's nature and character.
That does not prove that God does not exist. It merely proves that He
revealed Himself to people and trusts us to discover who He is as
communities in which we gather and worship.
On Nov 17, 9:18 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> received payment for his work."
> Story B:
> "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> received payment for his work."
> Identical, right? We can assume the two stories are talking about the
> same person. But what if we make a minor change to Story B?
> "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because the
> rivers did the work."
> Are we now talking about two different people? I think most people
> would say no, we are not. We are still talking about the same person
> but are disagreeing about the details. There exists an entity
> "Hercules" with a True Identity. The above stories are possible
> represenations of that.
> But how far can we take this? Through continuous subsequent
> modifications, Story B could become something like:
> "Bob, the brother of Fred, had to go to the store to get some milk and
> bread. When he got back, his wife was mad because he bought the wrong
> brand of bread."
> I'm sure we can all agree that it is possible to get from the first
> incarnation of Story B to the above through a series of minor changes.
> Yet I doubt that any would agree that Story A and B are still talking
> about the same proposed entity. The explanation that we are talking
> about the same thing, but disagreeing on the details, no longer holds.
> But at what point do the stories stop referencing the same thing? Is
> it tied to the name? Unlikely. If Story B was:
> "Bob, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> received payment for his work."
> We would quickly realize we are talking about who is more commonly
> known as Hercules.
> So where is the breakdown?
> This, I think, is a version of the Sorites paradox (the addition of a
> single rock cannot turn a hill into a mountain, nor can the removal of
> a single rock turn a mountain into a hill, but yet we can go from one
> to the other by adding or removing enough rocks).
> It also shows that the identity of something does not rest solely
> within the name, but in its entire description. We are not simply our
> name, but also what we do and say.
> We allow for some wiggle room in the descrepancies of stories because
> we understand that the descriptions are not complete and the details
> we have may not be accurate or true. But this wiggle room is not
> quantifiable or discrete, which allows for the paradox.
> The paradox can be resolved by eliminating this wiggle room and
> adhering strictly to a single description.
> If the teller of Story A did this, then Story B stops describing the
> same entity the second **any detail changes, no matter how trivial**.
> The teller of Story A may say something like, "No, you're wrong about
> some of those details." but the ultimatle implication of this strict
> interpretation is that they are **talking about two separate and
> distinct entities**.
> What does this have to do with anything?
> Well, let's swap Hercules for God. Now, some Christians are of the
> line that there is no wiggle room. You get it 100% right, or you'll
> burn. Thus effectively destroys Christianity because it basically
> means that each denomination and sect with its own interpretation are
> actually talking about multiple different Gods with different
> descriptions. They aren't believing in the "same" God.
> What happens if we allow for wiggle room? Well that just introduces
> the above Sorites paradox. We lack the ability to definitive say what
> is and is not a correct description of God. This also destroys
> Christianity because any description of anything could be a
> description of God that just differs on the details.
> If both options undermine Christianity, then how does Christianity
> persist? In the first case, there is collusion. Christians with strict
> interpretations are willing to over look internal conflicts to fight
> greater enemies and get the core "message" of Christianity spread. In
> the second case, just as we are able to distinguish between hills and
> mountains despite the existence of the paradox, we can still
> distinguish between Christians and non-Christians despite the
> existence of the paradox. At least, for the extreme ends of the
> spectrum. When you get to the middle grey area, each individual would
> have their own boundary line they use to make that determination, but
> this line is arbitrary.
> In short, these problems are simply ignored. It's as if there is an
> unspoken agreement between those whose stories are similar: "I believe
> that you're wrong, but I'll ignore that so we can gang up on people we
> agree are wrong-er."
> Of course, once the wrong-est people are out of the way, they'll turn
> on each other.
On Nov 17, 3:00 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Now, some Christians are of the
> > line that there is no wiggle room. You get it 100% right, or you'll
> > burn.
> I appreciate your comparison, but I take issue with your statement
> here. Christians, generally speaking, would focus upon faith in
> Christ as a primary condition for salvation.
This hardly resolves anything. When you say "faith in Christ" you are
talking about a conception of Christ. As I said, the identity of
Christ does not rest in only the name. So, either there isn't wiggle
room, and your conception must be perfectly correct, or there is, in
which case there lacks any identifiable boundary for *not* having
faith in Christ.
> Granted, this is
> expressed differently in religious practices such as penance in the
> Catholic church or prayer to icons in the Orthodox, but the highest
> priority is Christ, not the ritual.
> If you research Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox traditions we all
> agree on the centrality of Christ and therefore it is not exactly
> right that 100% of all of the many other doctrines must be adhered
> to.
You are proving my statement. The "centrality of Christ" is a vague,
fuzzy blanket statement used to smooth over the internal conflicts.
These conflicts are are brought to bear when you actually sit down and
think about it.
Catholics and Protestents differ in the view of the authority of the
Pope, which the Catholics believe came from Christ. The protestents
obviously differ.
Since there are different depictions of Christ within those religions.
Thus swapping God for Christ is nothing more than a superficial
change; it does not eliminate the issues I described.
> There is considerable laxing between the major three in
> recognizing that there are different ways to "do Christianity" but
> only one person of Christ who is the center of all of our corporate
> worship.
I find this statement to be astounding. Are you completely ignorant of
the massive amounts of infighting between religious denominations?
Complete and utter wanton violence over simple issues of Biblical
interpretation?
It does not go on now as much as it did, but that's only because they
can't get away with it as the used to.
In any event, there is hardly "considerable laxing".
> Since God has revealed Scripture to us, there is considerable room for
> interpretation. You are right to acknowledge we have different ways
> of understanding specific passages about God's nature and character.
> That does not prove that God does not exist. It merely proves that He
> revealed Himself to people and trusts us to discover who He is as
> communities in which we gather and worship.
At no point in anything I said did I offer the above as proof that God
does not exist. I'm merely stating that there are two choices here:
strict interpretation and loose interpretation.
A strict interpretation means, at most, one interpretation is correct
and all others are wrong. A loose interpration invites the Sorites
paradox and offers no measure by which any interpretation, no matter
how radical, can be considered invalid.
> On Nov 17, 9:18 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Take two stories:
> > Story A:
> > "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> > labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> > received payment for his work."
> > Story B:
> > "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> > labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> > received payment for his work."
> > Identical, right? We can assume the two stories are talking about the
> > same person. But what if we make a minor change to Story B?
> > "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> > labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because the
> > rivers did the work."
> > Are we now talking about two different people? I think most people
> > would say no, we are not. We are still talking about the same person
> > but are disagreeing about the details. There exists an entity
> > "Hercules" with a True Identity. The above stories are possible
> > represenations of that.
> > But how far can we take this? Through continuous subsequent
> > modifications, Story B could become something like:
> > "Bob, the brother of Fred, had to go to the store to get some milk and
> > bread. When he got back, his wife was mad because he bought the wrong
> > brand of bread."
> > I'm sure we can all agree that it is possible to get from the first
> > incarnation of Story B to the above through a series of minor changes.
> > Yet I doubt that any would agree that Story A and B are still talking
> > about the same proposed entity. The explanation that we are talking
> > about the same thing, but disagreeing on the details, no longer holds.
> > But at what point do the stories stop referencing the same thing? Is
> > it tied to the name? Unlikely. If Story B was:
> > "Bob, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> > labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> > received payment for his work."
> > We would quickly realize we are talking about who is more commonly
> > known as Hercules.
> > So where is the breakdown?
> > This, I think, is a version of the Sorites paradox (the addition of a
> > single rock cannot turn a hill into a mountain, nor can the removal of
> > a single rock turn a mountain into a hill, but yet we can go from one
> > to the other by adding or removing enough rocks).
> > It also shows that the identity of something does not rest solely
> > within the name, but in its entire description. We are not simply our
> > name, but also what we do and say.
> > We allow for some wiggle room in the descrepancies of stories because
> > we understand that the descriptions are not complete and the details
> > we have may not be accurate or true. But this wiggle room is not
> > quantifiable or discrete, which allows for the paradox.
> > The paradox can be resolved by eliminating this wiggle room and
> > adhering strictly to a single description.
> > If the teller of Story A did this, then Story B stops describing the
> > same entity the second **any detail changes, no matter how trivial**.
> > The teller of Story A may say something like, "No, you're wrong about
> > some of those details." but the ultimatle implication of this strict
> > interpretation is that they are **talking about two separate and
> > distinct entities**.
> > What does this have to do with anything?
> > Well, let's swap Hercules for God. Now, some Christians are of the
> > line that there is no wiggle room. You get it 100% right, or you'll
> > burn. Thus effectively destroys Christianity because it basically
> > means that each denomination and sect with its own interpretation are
> > actually talking about multiple different Gods with different
> > descriptions. They aren't believing in the "same" God.
> > What happens if we allow for wiggle room? Well that just introduces
> > the above Sorites paradox. We lack the ability to definitive say what
> > is and is not a correct description of God. This also destroys
> > Christianity because any description of anything could be a
> > description of God that just differs on the details.
> > If both options undermine Christianity, then how does Christianity
> > persist? In the first case, there is collusion. Christians with strict
> > interpretations are willing to over look internal conflicts to fight
> > greater enemies and get the core "message" of Christianity spread. In
> > the second case, just as we are able to distinguish between hills and
> > mountains despite the existence of the paradox, we can still
> > distinguish between Christians and non-Christians despite the
> > existence of the paradox. At least, for the extreme ends of the
> > spectrum. When you get to the middle grey area, each individual would
> > have their own boundary line they use to make that determination, but
> > this line is arbitrary.
> > In short, these problems are simply ignored. It's as if there is an
> > unspoken agreement between those whose stories are similar: "I believe
> > that you're wrong, but I'll ignore that so we can gang up on people we
> > agree are wrong-er."
> > Of course, once the wrong-est people are out of the way, they'll turn
> > on each other.- Hide quoted text -
On Nov 17, 12:00 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Now, some Christians are of the
> > line that there is no wiggle room. You get it 100% right, or you'll
> > burn.
> I appreciate your comparison, but I take issue with your statement
> here. Christians, generally speaking, would focus upon faith in
> Christ as a primary condition for salvation.
Observer
Why should such be the case , when all you have to recommend such, is
the lunacy of a fiction created by uneducated, primitive,
superstitious people using undisciplined imagination, and
plagiarizing earlier superstitious beliefs?
The belief that a Christ ever existed is pure superstitious nonsense
as is the lions share of this idiotic superstitious filth called the
bible.
The belief in original sin is absolutely psychotic. Humanity has
evolved with out any interference from the non existent stupidity of
good and evil 'till the introduction of superstitious filth as a tool
of the priest craft intended to assure their power over the ignorant ,
and uneducated of the world.
Granted, this is
> expressed differently in religious practices such as penance in the
> Catholic church or prayer to icons in the Orthodox, but the highest
> priority is Christ, not the ritual.
Observer
Who cares? its all psychotic crap starting with the belief in a god
for which there exists on scientifically verifiable substantiating
data proving its existence or any act there of.
> If you research Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox traditions we all
> agree on the centrality of Christ and therefore it is not exactly
> right that 100% of all of the many other doctrines must be adhered
> to. There is considerable laxing between the major three in
> recognizing that there are different ways to "do Christianity" but
> only one person of Christ who is the center of all of our corporate
> worship.
Observer
Why do you worship this legendary , fictive , sadomasochistic
monster ? What is there about a fiction wherein the god imagined is so
inept as to require the torturing to death of it's self / it's son to
save us from its own wrath?
What gut wrenching idiotic filth you believe in, is there no room for
thought in Christendom ,no respect for logic , critical thought or the
the scientific method ? Catholicism and must be expunged from the
minds of the believers ,just as surely as must be,all the
superstitious filth produced of the stupidity of the Abrahamic/
misanthropic traditions , if there is ever to be world peace, and a
life where in utilitarian functions are respected as beautiful and
correct. If we are to have any worship let it be for our own beauty ,
intelligence and adaquacy to the purpose of producing a much better
world than was left to us be the stupidity of religions/superstitions
witch is simply belief in demons, fetishistic ,sadomasochistic magic,
and other such untenable nonsense.
> Since God has revealed Scripture to us, there is considerable room for
> interpretation.
Observer
I ask you to provide scientifically verifiable substantiating data
proving that this load of psychotic crap was inspired by or reviled by
a god.
First you have the challenge of proving the existence of this god
thing as I asked for above. (scientifically verifiable substantiating
data proving either its existence or any act thereof)
You are right to acknowledge we have different ways
> of understanding specific passages about God's nature and character.
> That does not prove that God does not exist. It merely proves that He
> revealed Himself to people and trusts us to discover who He is as
> communities in which we gather and worship.
What utter stupidity ! You are indeed the victim of a heinous and
disgusting set or misanthropic beliefs and are demonstrative of
exactly what Dr. Richard Dawkins called a meme.
I wish you well but detest the filthy , sadomasochistic, misanthropic,
mind eating fiction in which your believe.
> On Nov 17, 9:18 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Take two stories:
> > Story A:
> > "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> > labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> > received payment for his work."
> > Story B:
> > "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> > labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> > received payment for his work."
> > Identical, right? We can assume the two stories are talking about the
> > same person. But what if we make a minor change to Story B?
> > "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> > labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because the
> > rivers did the work."
> > Are we now talking about two different people? I think most people
> > would say no, we are not. We are still talking about the same person
> > but are disagreeing about the details. There exists an entity
> > "Hercules" with a True Identity. The above stories are possible
> > represenations of that.
> > But how far can we take this? Through continuous subsequent
> > modifications, Story B could become something like:
> > "Bob, the brother of Fred, had to go to the store to get some milk and
> > bread. When he got back, his wife was mad because he bought the wrong
> > brand of bread."
> > I'm sure we can all agree that it is possible to get from the first
> > incarnation of Story B to the above through a series of minor changes.
> > Yet I doubt that any would agree that Story A and B are still talking
> > about the same proposed entity. The explanation that we are talking
> > about the same thing, but disagreeing on the details, no longer holds.
> > But at what point do the stories stop referencing the same thing? Is
> > it tied to the name? Unlikely. If Story B was:
> > "Bob, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> > labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> > received payment for his work."
> > We would quickly realize we are talking about who is more commonly
> > known as Hercules.
> > So where is the breakdown?
> > This, I think, is a version of the Sorites paradox (the addition of a
> > single rock cannot turn a hill into a mountain, nor can the removal of
> > a single rock turn a mountain into a hill, but yet we can go from one
> > to the other by adding or removing enough rocks).
> > It also shows that the identity of something does not rest solely
> > within the name, but in its entire description. We are not simply our
> > name, but also what we do and say.
> > We allow for some wiggle room in the descrepancies of stories because
> > we understand that the descriptions are not complete and the details
> > we have may not be accurate or true. But this wiggle room is not
> > quantifiable or discrete, which allows for the paradox.
> > The paradox can be resolved by eliminating this wiggle room and
> > adhering strictly to a single description.
> > If the teller of Story A did this, then Story B stops describing the
> > same entity the second **any detail changes, no matter how trivial**.
> > The teller of Story A may say something like, "No, you're wrong about
> > some of those details." but the ultimatle implication of this strict
> > interpretation is that they are **talking about two separate and
> > distinct entities**.
> > What does this have to do with anything?
> > Well, let's swap Hercules for God. Now, some Christians are of the
> > line that there is no wiggle room. You get it 100% right, or you'll
> > burn. Thus effectively destroys Christianity because it basically
> > means that each denomination and sect with its own interpretation are
> > actually talking about multiple different Gods with different
> > descriptions. They aren't believing in the "same" God.
> > What happens if we allow for wiggle room? Well that just introduces
> > the above Sorites paradox. We lack the ability to definitive say what
> > is and is not a correct description of God. This also destroys
> > Christianity because any description of anything could be a
> > description of God that just differs on the details.
> > If both options undermine Christianity, then how does Christianity
> > persist? In the first case, there is collusion. Christians with strict
> > interpretations are willing to over look internal conflicts to fight
> > greater enemies and get the core "message" of Christianity spread. In
> > the second case, just as we are able to distinguish between hills and
> > mountains despite the existence of the paradox, we can still
> > distinguish between Christians and non-Christians despite the
> > existence of the paradox. At least, for the extreme ends of the
> > spectrum. When you get to the middle grey area, each individual would
> > have their own boundary line they use to make that determination, but
> > this line is arbitrary.
> > In short, these problems are simply ignored. It's as if there is an
> > unspoken agreement between those whose stories are similar: "I believe
> > that you're wrong, but I'll ignore that so we can gang up on people we
> > agree are wrong-er."
> > Of course, once the wrong-est people are out of the way, they'll turn
> > on each other.
> On Nov 17, 12:00 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Now, some Christians are of the
> > > line that there is no wiggle room. You get it 100% right, or you'll
> > > burn.
> > I appreciate your comparison, but I take issue with your statement
> > here. Christians, generally speaking, would focus upon faith in
> > Christ as a primary condition for salvation.
> Observer
> Why should such be the case , when all you have to recommend such, is
> the lunacy of a fiction created by uneducated, primitive,
> superstitious people using undisciplined imagination, and
> plagiarizing earlier superstitious beliefs?
> The belief that a Christ ever existed is pure superstitious nonsense
> as is the lions share of this idiotic superstitious filth called the
> bible.
> The belief in original sin is absolutely psychotic. Humanity has
> evolved with out any interference from the non existent stupidity of
> good and evil 'till the introduction of superstitious filth as a tool
> of the priest craft intended to assure their power over the ignorant ,
> and uneducated of the world.
> Granted, this is
> > expressed differently in religious practices such as penance in the
> > Catholic church or prayer to icons in the Orthodox, but the highest
> > priority is Christ, not the ritual.
> Observer
> Who cares? its all psychotic crap starting with the belief in a god
> for which there exists on scientifically verifiable substantiating
> data proving its existence or any act there of.
> > If you research Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox traditions we all
> > agree on the centrality of Christ and therefore it is not exactly
> > right that 100% of all of the many other doctrines must be adhered
> > to. There is considerable laxing between the major three in
> > recognizing that there are different ways to "do Christianity" but
> > only one person of Christ who is the center of all of our corporate
> > worship.
> Observer
> Why do you worship this legendary , fictive , sadomasochistic
> monster ? What is there about a fiction wherein the god imagined is so
> inept as to require the torturing to death of it's self / it's son to
> save us from its own wrath?
> What gut wrenching idiotic filth you believe in, is there no room for
> thought in Christendom ,no respect for logic , critical thought or the
> the scientific method ? Catholicism and must be expunged from the
> minds of the believers ,just as surely as must be,all the
> superstitious filth produced of the stupidity of the Abrahamic/
> misanthropic traditions , if there is ever to be world peace, and a
> life where in utilitarian functions are respected as beautiful and
> correct. If we are to have any worship let it be for our own beauty ,
> intelligence and adaquacy to the purpose of producing a much better
> world than was left to us be the stupidity of religions/superstitions
> witch is simply belief in demons, fetishistic ,sadomasochistic magic,
> and other such untenable nonsense.
> > Since God has revealed Scripture to us, there is considerable room for
> > interpretation.
> Observer
> I ask you to provide scientifically verifiable substantiating data
> proving that this load of psychotic crap was inspired by or reviled by
> a god.
> First you have the challenge of proving the existence of this god
> thing as I asked for above. (scientifically verifiable substantiating
> data proving either its existence or any act thereof)
> You are right to acknowledge we have different ways
> > of understanding specific passages about God's nature and character.
> > That does not prove that God does not exist. It merely proves that He
> > revealed Himself to people and trusts us to discover who He is as
> > communities in which we gather and worship.
> What utter stupidity ! You are indeed the victim of a heinous and
> disgusting set or misanthropic beliefs and are demonstrative of
> exactly what Dr. Richard Dawkins called a meme.
> I wish you well but detest the filthy , sadomasochistic, misanthropic,
> mind eating fiction in which your believe.
> Psychonomist
> > On Nov 17, 9:18 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Take two stories:
> > > Story A:
> > > "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> > > labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> > > received payment for his work."
> > > Story B:
> > > "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> > > labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> > > received payment for his work."
> > > Identical, right? We can assume the two stories are talking about the
> > > same person. But what if we make a minor change to Story B?
> > > "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> > > labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because the
> > > rivers did the work."
> > > Are we now talking about two different people? I think most people
> > > would say no, we are not. We are still talking about the same person
> > > but are disagreeing about the details. There exists an entity
> > > "Hercules" with a True Identity. The above stories are possible
> > > represenations of that.
> > > But how far can we take this? Through continuous subsequent
> > > modifications, Story B could become something like:
> > > "Bob, the brother of Fred, had to go to the store to get some milk and
> > > bread. When he got back, his wife was mad because he bought the wrong
> > > brand of bread."
> > > I'm sure we can all agree that it is possible to get from the first
> > > incarnation of Story B to the above through a series of minor changes.
> > > Yet I doubt that any would agree that Story A and B are still talking
> > > about the same proposed entity. The explanation that we are talking
> > > about the same thing, but disagreeing on the details, no longer holds.
> > > But at what point do the stories stop referencing the same thing? Is
> > > it tied to the name? Unlikely. If Story B was:
> > > "Bob, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> > > labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> > > received payment for his work."
> > > We would quickly realize we are talking about who is more commonly
> > > known as Hercules.
> > > So where is the breakdown?
> > > This, I think, is a version of the Sorites paradox (the addition of a
> > > single rock cannot turn a hill into a mountain, nor can the removal of
> > > a single rock turn a mountain into a hill, but yet we can go from one
> > > to the other by adding or removing enough rocks).
> > > It also shows that the identity of something does not rest solely
> > > within the name, but in its entire description. We are not simply our
> > > name, but also what we do and say.
> > > We allow for some wiggle room in the descrepancies of stories because
> > > we understand that the descriptions are not complete and the details
> > > we have may not be accurate or true. But this wiggle room is not
> > > quantifiable or discrete, which allows for the paradox.
> > > The paradox can be resolved by eliminating this wiggle room and
> > > adhering strictly to a single description.
> > > If the teller of Story A did this, then Story B stops describing the
> > > same entity the second **any detail changes, no matter how trivial**.
> > > The teller of Story A may say something like, "No, you're wrong about
> > > some of those details." but the ultimatle implication of this strict
> > > interpretation is that they are **talking about two separate and
> > > distinct entities**.
> > > What does this have to do with anything?
> > > Well, let's swap Hercules for God. Now, some Christians are of the
> > > line that there is no wiggle room. You get it 100% right, or you'll
> > > burn. Thus effectively destroys Christianity because it basically
> > > means that each denomination and sect with its own interpretation are
> > > actually talking about multiple different Gods with different
> > > descriptions. They aren't believing in the "same" God.
> > > What happens if we allow for wiggle room? Well that just introduces
> > > the above Sorites paradox. We lack the ability to definitive say what
> > > is and is not a correct description of God. This also destroys
> > > Christianity because any description of anything could be a
> > > description of God that just differs on the details.
> > > If both options undermine Christianity, then how does Christianity
> > > persist? In the first case, there is collusion. Christians with strict
> > > interpretations are willing to over look internal conflicts to fight
> > > greater enemies and get the core "message" of Christianity spread. In
> > > the second case, just as we are able to distinguish between hills and
> > > mountains despite the existence of the paradox, we can still
> > > distinguish between Christians and non-Christians despite the
> > > existence of the paradox. At least, for the extreme ends of the
> > > spectrum. When you get to the middle grey area, each individual would
> > > have their own boundary line they use to make that determination, but
> > > this line is arbitrary.
> > > In short, these problems are simply ignored. It's as if there is an
> > > unspoken agreement between those whose stories are similar: "I believe
> > > that you're wrong, but I'll ignore that so we can gang up on people we
> > > agree are wrong-er."
who said 'god' revealed the scriptures to us? arent you taking
someones word for that? why would you believe something just because
you were told about it?
On Nov 17, 3:00 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Now, some Christians are of the
> > line that there is no wiggle room. You get it 100% right, or you'll
> > burn.
> I appreciate your comparison, but I take issue with your statement
> here. Christians, generally speaking, would focus upon faith in
> Christ as a primary condition for salvation. Granted, this is
> expressed differently in religious practices such as penance in the
> Catholic church or prayer to icons in the Orthodox, but the highest
> priority is Christ, not the ritual.
> If you research Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox traditions we all
> agree on the centrality of Christ and therefore it is not exactly
> right that 100% of all of the many other doctrines must be adhered
> to. There is considerable laxing between the major three in
> recognizing that there are different ways to "do Christianity" but
> only one person of Christ who is the center of all of our corporate
> worship.
> Since God has revealed Scripture to us, there is considerable room for
> interpretation. You are right to acknowledge we have different ways
> of understanding specific passages about God's nature and character.
> That does not prove that God does not exist. It merely proves that He
> revealed Himself to people and trusts us to discover who He is as
> communities in which we gather and worship.
> On Nov 17, 9:18 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Take two stories:
> > Story A:
> > "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> > labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> > received payment for his work."
> > Story B:
> > "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> > labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> > received payment for his work."
> > Identical, right? We can assume the two stories are talking about the
> > same person. But what if we make a minor change to Story B?
> > "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> > labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because the
> > rivers did the work."
> > Are we now talking about two different people? I think most people
> > would say no, we are not. We are still talking about the same person
> > but are disagreeing about the details. There exists an entity
> > "Hercules" with a True Identity. The above stories are possible
> > represenations of that.
> > But how far can we take this? Through continuous subsequent
> > modifications, Story B could become something like:
> > "Bob, the brother of Fred, had to go to the store to get some milk and
> > bread. When he got back, his wife was mad because he bought the wrong
> > brand of bread."
> > I'm sure we can all agree that it is possible to get from the first
> > incarnation of Story B to the above through a series of minor changes.
> > Yet I doubt that any would agree that Story A and B are still talking
> > about the same proposed entity. The explanation that we are talking
> > about the same thing, but disagreeing on the details, no longer holds.
> > But at what point do the stories stop referencing the same thing? Is
> > it tied to the name? Unlikely. If Story B was:
> > "Bob, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> > labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> > received payment for his work."
> > We would quickly realize we are talking about who is more commonly
> > known as Hercules.
> > So where is the breakdown?
> > This, I think, is a version of the Sorites paradox (the addition of a
> > single rock cannot turn a hill into a mountain, nor can the removal of
> > a single rock turn a mountain into a hill, but yet we can go from one
> > to the other by adding or removing enough rocks).
> > It also shows that the identity of something does not rest solely
> > within the name, but in its entire description. We are not simply our
> > name, but also what we do and say.
> > We allow for some wiggle room in the descrepancies of stories because
> > we understand that the descriptions are not complete and the details
> > we have may not be accurate or true. But this wiggle room is not
> > quantifiable or discrete, which allows for the paradox.
> > The paradox can be resolved by eliminating this wiggle room and
> > adhering strictly to a single description.
> > If the teller of Story A did this, then Story B stops describing the
> > same entity the second **any detail changes, no matter how trivial**.
> > The teller of Story A may say something like, "No, you're wrong about
> > some of those details." but the ultimatle implication of this strict
> > interpretation is that they are **talking about two separate and
> > distinct entities**.
> > What does this have to do with anything?
> > Well, let's swap Hercules for God. Now, some Christians are of the
> > line that there is no wiggle room. You get it 100% right, or you'll
> > burn. Thus effectively destroys Christianity because it basically
> > means that each denomination and sect with its own interpretation are
> > actually talking about multiple different Gods with different
> > descriptions. They aren't believing in the "same" God.
> > What happens if we allow for wiggle room? Well that just introduces
> > the above Sorites paradox. We lack the ability to definitive say what
> > is and is not a correct description of God. This also destroys
> > Christianity because any description of anything could be a
> > description of God that just differs on the details.
> > If both options undermine Christianity, then how does Christianity
> > persist? In the first case, there is collusion. Christians with strict
> > interpretations are willing to over look internal conflicts to fight
> > greater enemies and get the core "message" of Christianity spread. In
> > the second case, just as we are able to distinguish between hills and
> > mountains despite the existence of the paradox, we can still
> > distinguish between Christians and non-Christians despite the
> > existence of the paradox. At least, for the extreme ends of the
> > spectrum. When you get to the middle grey area, each individual would
> > have their own boundary line they use to make that determination, but
> > this line is arbitrary.
> > In short, these problems are simply ignored. It's as if there is an
> > unspoken agreement between those whose stories are similar: "I believe
> > that you're wrong, but I'll ignore that so we can gang up on people we
> > agree are wrong-er."
> > Of course, once the wrong-est people are out of the way, they'll turn
> > on each other.- Hide quoted text -
As with any proper noun, we must substitute a definite description. It
needs to be unique enough to identify a single unique individual, as
you pointed out.
The "no wiggle room" problem you cite was very well understood in the
early centuries. It's why we have the Nicene-Constantinople Creed(*),
finalized in the Council of Constantinople in 381. The middle part,
excerpted below provides the no-wiggle-room definite description of
Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ:
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation,
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge
the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
> "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> received payment for his work."
> Story B:
> "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> received payment for his work."
> Identical, right? We can assume the two stories are talking about the
> same person. But what if we make a minor change to Story B?
> "Hercules, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because the
> rivers did the work."
> Are we now talking about two different people? I think most people
> would say no, we are not. We are still talking about the same person
> but are disagreeing about the details. There exists an entity
> "Hercules" with a True Identity. The above stories are possible
> represenations of that.
> But how far can we take this? Through continuous subsequent
> modifications, Story B could become something like:
> "Bob, the brother of Fred, had to go to the store to get some milk and
> bread. When he got back, his wife was mad because he bought the wrong
> brand of bread."
> I'm sure we can all agree that it is possible to get from the first
> incarnation of Story B to the above through a series of minor changes.
> Yet I doubt that any would agree that Story A and B are still talking
> about the same proposed entity. The explanation that we are talking
> about the same thing, but disagreeing on the details, no longer holds.
> But at what point do the stories stop referencing the same thing? Is
> it tied to the name? Unlikely. If Story B was:
> "Bob, the son of Zeus, had to perform twelve labors. One of those
> labors, cleaning the Augeon stables in day, did not count because he
> received payment for his work."
> We would quickly realize we are talking about who is more commonly
> known as Hercules.
> So where is the breakdown?
> This, I think, is a version of the Sorites paradox (the addition of a
> single rock cannot turn a hill into a mountain, nor can the removal of
> a single rock turn a mountain into a hill, but yet we can go from one
> to the other by adding or removing enough rocks).
> It also shows that the identity of something does not rest solely
> within the name, but in its entire description. We are not simply our
> name, but also what we do and say.
> We allow for some wiggle room in the descrepancies of stories because
> we understand that the descriptions are not complete and the details
> we have may not be accurate or true. But this wiggle room is not
> quantifiable or discrete, which allows for the paradox.
> The paradox can be resolved by eliminating this wiggle room and
> adhering strictly to a single description.
> If the teller of Story A did this, then Story B stops describing the
> same entity the second **any detail changes, no matter how trivial**.
> The teller of Story A may say something like, "No, you're wrong about
> some of those details." but the ultimatle implication of this strict
> interpretation is that they are **talking about two separate and
> distinct entities**.
> What does this have to do with anything?
> Well, let's swap Hercules for God. Now, some Christians are of the
> line that there is no wiggle room. You get it 100% right, or you'll
> burn. Thus effectively destroys Christianity because it basically
> means that each denomination and sect with its own interpretation are
> actually talking about multiple different Gods with different
> descriptions. They aren't believing in the "same" God.
> What happens if we allow for wiggle room? Well that just introduces
> the above Sorites paradox. We lack the ability to definitive say what
> is and is not a correct description of God. This also destroys
> Christianity because any description of anything could be a
> description of God that just differs on the details.
> If both options undermine Christianity, then how does Christianity
> persist? In the first case, there is collusion. Christians with strict
> interpretations are willing to over look internal conflicts to fight
> greater enemies and get the core "message" of Christianity spread. In
> the second case, just as we are able to distinguish between hills and
> mountains despite the existence of the paradox, we can still
> distinguish between Christians and non-Christians despite the
> existence of the paradox. At least, for the extreme ends of the
> spectrum. When you get to the middle grey area, each individual would
> have their own boundary line they use to make that determination, but
> this line is arbitrary.
> In short, these problems are simply ignored. It's as if there is an
> unspoken agreement between those whose stories are similar: "I believe
> that you're wrong, but I'll ignore that so we can gang up on people we
> agree are wrong-er."
> Of course, once the wrong-est people are out of the way, they'll turn
> on each other.
> As with any proper noun, we must substitute a definite description. It
> needs to be unique enough to identify a single unique individual, as
> you pointed out.
> The "no wiggle room" problem you cite was very well understood in the
> early centuries. It's why we have the Nicene-Constantinople Creed(*),
> finalized in the Council of Constantinople in 381. The middle part,
> excerpted below provides the no-wiggle-room definite description of
> Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ:
> We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
> the only Son of God,
> eternally begotten of the Father,
> God from God, Light from Light,
> true God from true God,
> begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
> Through him all things were made.
> For us men and for our salvation,
> he came down from heaven:
> by the power of the Holy Spirit
> he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
> For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
> he suffered, died, and was buried.
> On the third day he rose again
> in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
> he ascended into heaven
> and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
> He will come again in glory to judge
> the living and the dead,
> and his kingdom will have no end.
You omitted one important detail: "He descended into Hell."
" For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hell.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;"
> On Nov 19, 3:04 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As with any proper noun, we must substitute a definite description. It
> > needs to be unique enough to identify a single unique individual, as
> > you pointed out.
> > The "no wiggle room" problem you cite was very well understood in the
> > early centuries. It's why we have the Nicene-Constantinople Creed(*),
> > finalized in the Council of Constantinople in 381. The middle part,
> > excerpted below provides the no-wiggle-room definite description of
> > Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ:
> > We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
> > the only Son of God,
> > eternally begotten of the Father,
> > God from God, Light from Light,
> > true God from true God,
> > begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
> > Through him all things were made.
> > For us men and for our salvation,
> > he came down from heaven:
> > by the power of the Holy Spirit
> > he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
> > For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
> > he suffered, died, and was buried.
> > On the third day he rose again
> > in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
> > he ascended into heaven
> > and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
> > He will come again in glory to judge
> > the living and the dead,
> > and his kingdom will have no end.
> You omitted one important detail: "He descended into Hell."
> " For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
> he suffered, died, and was buried.
> He descended into Hell.
> On the third day he rose again
> in fulfillment of the Scriptures;"
> On Nov 19, 8:00 am, "William T. Goat" <ericv...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 3:04 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As with any proper noun, we must substitute a definite description. It
> > > needs to be unique enough to identify a single unique individual, as
> > > you pointed out.
> > > The "no wiggle room" problem you cite was very well understood in the
> > > early centuries. It's why we have the Nicene-Constantinople Creed(*),
> > > finalized in the Council of Constantinople in 381. The middle part,
> > > excerpted below provides the no-wiggle-room definite description of
> > > Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ:
> > > We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
> > > the only Son of God,
> > > eternally begotten of the Father,
> > > God from God, Light from Light,
> > > true God from true God,
> > > begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
> > > Through him all things were made.
> > > For us men and for our salvation,
> > > he came down from heaven:
> > > by the power of the Holy Spirit
> > > he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
> > > For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
> > > he suffered, died, and was buried.
> > > On the third day he rose again
> > > in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
> > > he ascended into heaven
> > > and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
> > > He will come again in glory to judge
> > > the living and the dead,
> > > and his kingdom will have no end.
> > You omitted one important detail: "He descended into Hell."
> > " For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
> > he suffered, died, and was buried.
> > He descended into Hell.
> > On the third day he rose again
> > in fulfillment of the Scriptures;"
> As with any proper noun, we must substitute a definite description. It
> needs to be unique enough to identify a single unique individual, as
> you pointed out.
> The "no wiggle room" problem you cite was very well understood in the
> early centuries. It's why we have the Nicene-Constantinople Creed(*),
> finalized in the Council of Constantinople in 381. The middle part,
> excerpted below provides the no-wiggle-room definite description of
> Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ:
> We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
> the only Son of God,
> eternally begotten of the Father,
> God from God, Light from Light,
> true God from true God,
> begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
> Through him all things were made.
> For us men and for our salvation,
> he came down from heaven:
> by the power of the Holy Spirit
> he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
> For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
> he suffered, died, and was buried.
> On the third day he rose again
> in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
> he ascended into heaven
> and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
> He will come again in glory to judge
> the living and the dead,
> and his kingdom will have no end.
So, the Jesus described in the Bible is the real McCoy because he
matches the Jesus described in this creed of yours...
Super, I am convinced!
Now, all you have left to do is tell us where this creed came from...
_____________________________________
Those Jesus Freaks
Well, they're friendly but
The shit they believe
Has got their minds all shut
An' they don't even care
When the church takes a cut
Ain't it bleak when you got so much nothin'
-- Frank Zappa, "The Meek Shall Inherit Nothin'"
> On Nov 19, 11:28 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 8:00 am, "William T. Goat" <ericv...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 19, 3:04 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > As with any proper noun, we must substitute a definite description. It
> > > > needs to be unique enough to identify a single unique individual, as
> > > > you pointed out.
> > > > The "no wiggle room" problem you cite was very well understood in the
> > > > early centuries. It's why we have the Nicene-Constantinople Creed(*),
> > > > finalized in the Council of Constantinople in 381. The middle part,
> > > > excerpted below provides the no-wiggle-room definite description of
> > > > Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ:
> > > > We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
> > > > the only Son of God,
> > > > eternally begotten of the Father,
> > > > God from God, Light from Light,
> > > > true God from true God,
> > > > begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
> > > > Through him all things were made.
> > > > For us men and for our salvation,
> > > > he came down from heaven:
> > > > by the power of the Holy Spirit
> > > > he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
> > > > For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
> > > > he suffered, died, and was buried.
> > > > On the third day he rose again
> > > > in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
> > > > he ascended into heaven
> > > > and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
> > > > He will come again in glory to judge
> > > > the living and the dead,
> > > > and his kingdom will have no end.
> > > You omitted one important detail: "He descended into Hell."
> > > " For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
> > > he suffered, died, and was buried.
> > > He descended into Hell.
> > > On the third day he rose again
> > > in fulfillment of the Scriptures;"
> So, if someone believes in a Jesus that does not fit the creed 100%,
> then they don't really believe in Jesus?
That is the way proper nouns and their definite descriptions work.
It's as if you asked "if somebody believes in a George Washington that
is not 100% the first president of the United States, they don't
really believe in George Washington"?
> On Nov 19, 9:07 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 11:28 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 19, 8:00 am, "William T. Goat" <ericv...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 19, 3:04 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > As with any proper noun, we must substitute a definite description. It
> > > > > needs to be unique enough to identify a single unique individual, as
> > > > > you pointed out.
> > > > > The "no wiggle room" problem you cite was very well understood in the
> > > > > early centuries. It's why we have the Nicene-Constantinople Creed(*),
> > > > > finalized in the Council of Constantinople in 381. The middle part,
> > > > > excerpted below provides the no-wiggle-room definite description of
> > > > > Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ:
> > > > > We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
> > > > > the only Son of God,
> > > > > eternally begotten of the Father,
> > > > > God from God, Light from Light,
> > > > > true God from true God,
> > > > > begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
> > > > > Through him all things were made.
> > > > > For us men and for our salvation,
> > > > > he came down from heaven:
> > > > > by the power of the Holy Spirit
> > > > > he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
> > > > > For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
> > > > > he suffered, died, and was buried.
> > > > > On the third day he rose again
> > > > > in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
> > > > > he ascended into heaven
> > > > > and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
> > > > > He will come again in glory to judge
> > > > > the living and the dead,
> > > > > and his kingdom will have no end.
> > > > You omitted one important detail: "He descended into Hell."
> > > > " For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
> > > > he suffered, died, and was buried.
> > > > He descended into Hell.
> > > > On the third day he rose again
> > > > in fulfillment of the Scriptures;"
> > So, if someone believes in a Jesus that does not fit the creed 100%,
> > then they don't really believe in Jesus?
> That is the way proper nouns and their definite descriptions work.
> It's as if you asked "if somebody believes in a George Washington that
> is not 100% the first president of the United States, they don't
> really believe in George Washington"?
A clear, unambiguous yes or no would be appreciated. I'd hate to get
accused of misrepresenting anyone's position.
What's true of George, is true of Jesus. The person who asks "if
somebody believes in a George Washington that is not..", as was asked
"if somebody believes in a Jesus that is not.." has /already/ gone off
the rails in framing the question. Proper nouns do not name a class of
being, but always pick out a unique individual.
Whatever puzzles you exists for /any/ proper noun naming any
historical person who you cannot meet by direct introduction -- George
Washington the first president of the United States, George Washington
the US botanist, Jesus the Son of God. I suppose "Jesus the Son of
God" from the creed is adequate to pick out that unique individual, if
the person understands what he's saying. So he is at least thinking
about Jesus the Son of God. Does he /believe/ in Jesus? Different
question.
On Nov 20, 5:26 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2:07 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 9:07 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 19, 11:28 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 19, 8:00 am, "William T. Goat" <ericv...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 19, 3:04 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > As with any proper noun, we must substitute a definite description. It
> > > > > > needs to be unique enough to identify a single unique individual, as
> > > > > > you pointed out.
> > > > > > The "no wiggle room" problem you cite was very well understood in the
> > > > > > early centuries. It's why we have the Nicene-Constantinople Creed(*),
> > > > > > finalized in the Council of Constantinople in 381. The middle part,
> > > > > > excerpted below provides the no-wiggle-room definite description of
> > > > > > Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ:
> > > > > > We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
> > > > > > the only Son of God,
> > > > > > eternally begotten of the Father,
> > > > > > God from God, Light from Light,
> > > > > > true God from true God,
> > > > > > begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
> > > > > > Through him all things were made.
> > > > > > For us men and for our salvation,
> > > > > > he came down from heaven:
> > > > > > by the power of the Holy Spirit
> > > > > > he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
> > > > > > For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
> > > > > > he suffered, died, and was buried.
> > > > > > On the third day he rose again
> > > > > > in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
> > > > > > he ascended into heaven
> > > > > > and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
> > > > > > He will come again in glory to judge
> > > > > > the living and the dead,
> > > > > > and his kingdom will have no end.
> > > > > You omitted one important detail: "He descended into Hell."
> > > > > " For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
> > > > > he suffered, died, and was buried.
> > > > > He descended into Hell.
> > > > > On the third day he rose again
> > > > > in fulfillment of the Scriptures;"
> > > So, if someone believes in a Jesus that does not fit the creed 100%,
> > > then they don't really believe in Jesus?
> > That is the way proper nouns and their definite descriptions work.
> > It's as if you asked "if somebody believes in a George Washington that
> > is not 100% the first president of the United States, they don't
> > really believe in George Washington"?
> A clear, unambiguous yes or no would be appreciated. I'd hate to get
> accused of misrepresenting anyone's position.
On Nov 20, 11:46 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What's true of George, is true of Jesus. The person who asks "if
> somebody believes in a George Washington that is not..", as was asked
> "if somebody believes in a Jesus that is not.." has /already/ gone off
> the rails in framing the question. Proper nouns do not name a class of
> being, but always pick out a unique individual.
> Whatever puzzles you exists for /any/ proper noun naming any
> historical person who you cannot meet by direct introduction -- George
> Washington the first president of the United States, George Washington
> the US botanist, Jesus the Son of God. I suppose "Jesus the Son of
> God" from the creed is adequate to pick out that unique individual, if
> the person understands what he's saying. So he is at least thinking
> about Jesus the Son of God. Does he /believe/ in Jesus? Different
> question.
> On Nov 20, 5:26 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 2:07 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 19, 9:07 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 19, 11:28 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 19, 8:00 am, "William T. Goat" <ericv...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 19, 3:04 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > As with any proper noun, we must substitute a definite description. It
> > > > > > > needs to be unique enough to identify a single unique individual, as
> > > > > > > you pointed out.
> > > > > > > The "no wiggle room" problem you cite was very well understood in the
> > > > > > > early centuries. It's why we have the Nicene-Constantinople Creed(*),
> > > > > > > finalized in the Council of Constantinople in 381. The middle part,
> > > > > > > excerpted below provides the no-wiggle-room definite description of
> > > > > > > Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ:
> > > > > > > We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
> > > > > > > the only Son of God,
> > > > > > > eternally begotten of the Father,
> > > > > > > God from God, Light from Light,
> > > > > > > true God from true God,
> > > > > > > begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
> > > > > > > Through him all things were made.
> > > > > > > For us men and for our salvation,
> > > > > > > he came down from heaven:
> > > > > > > by the power of the Holy Spirit
> > > > > > > he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
> > > > > > > For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
> > > > > > > he suffered, died, and was buried.
> > > > > > > On the third day he rose again
> > > > > > > in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
> > > > > > > he ascended into heaven
> > > > > > > and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
> > > > > > > He will come again in glory to judge
> > > > > > > the living and the dead,
> > > > > > > and his kingdom will have no end.
> > > > > > You omitted one important detail: "He descended into Hell."
> > > > > > " For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
> > > > > > he suffered, died, and was buried.
> > > > > > He descended into Hell.
> > > > > > On the third day he rose again
> > > > > > in fulfillment of the Scriptures;"
> > > > So, if someone believes in a Jesus that does not fit the creed 100%,
> > > > then they don't really believe in Jesus?
> > > That is the way proper nouns and their definite descriptions work.
> > > It's as if you asked "if somebody believes in a George Washington that
> > > is not 100% the first president of the United States, they don't
> > > really believe in George Washington"?
> > A clear, unambiguous yes or no would be appreciated. I'd hate to get
> > accused of misrepresenting anyone's position.
|
