|
Post by stutefish on Sept 15, 2008 19:42:49 GMT -4
Of course it can be shown that those persons existed: After all, somebody authored those manuscripts. By convention, lay terminology names the authors in a way that is internally consistent with the narrative.
I suppose you might prefer the Textual Critic's terms of art, and refer to them as "Witness Alpha", "Witness Bravo", "Witness Charlie", and "Witness Delta", or some such.
But it seems rather beside the point--and feeble, to boot--to dispute the existence of authors for works that were, in fact, authored, and empirically so.
I'll leave it to other, better-informed debaters, to describe the technical details of how authors are identified and classified according to reliability and whatnot.
But obviously somebody wrote the Gospel of Matthew. After all, we have it right here in front of us to read. We call the author Matthew for convenience's sake. The question of who he actually was, and when he actually authored the text, is still on the table.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Sept 4, 2008 14:55:24 GMT -4
Again -- I have not said that we can't talk about families. You've said it's hypocritical to talk about one family but not another. I disagree. Michelle Obama is fair game, because she's made herself fair game. She's campaigning on behalf of her husband. She's getting up in public and presenting herself--her background, her values, her experience, her ideas--as an endorsement of her husband. She's saying that her opinions are worth something, when considering whether or not Obama should be President of the United States. That's public advocacy of a presidential candidate, and I believe that makes her fair game for public scrutiny. If she tells the public that she's qualified to judge Barack Obama's fitness for the presidency, then the public is, I think, entitled to scrutinize of her qualifications--in public. And the moment Bristol Palin steps up to the microphone at a campaign stop in Iowa, and tells us that she's qualified to judge Sarah Palin's fitness, I'll be the first to agree that we're justified in publically scrutinizing Bristol Palin's qualifications. I see no hypocrisy at all in scrutinizing family members who are actively campaigning on behalf of their kin, while simultaneously respecting the privacy and dignity of family members who take no part in their kin's campaign.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Sept 4, 2008 12:51:17 GMT -4
Sorry -- it doesn't work that way. You opened the door to this by using innuendo based on how Michelle Obama phrased something. Now that your side has some serious family issues that you would apparently rather not talk about, you want to take families off the table. That is hypocritical. One must also keep in mind that Michelle Obama has been a prominently active member of her husband's campaign. She's been stumping for him, in public. The remarks Jason is talking about weren't made during a private conversation in her living room with her girlfriends. They were made on the campaign trail, in a speech to the electorate, to promote her husband's bid for the presidency. It seems to me that it would hypocritical in the extreme to claim that a candidate's spouse can publically campaign on their, but is entitled to the full shield of personal privacy when their campaign-trail public statements and the attitudes and life experiences behind those statements are scrutinized. If Michelle isn't supposed to be part of the campaign, then she needs to stop making herself a part of the campaign.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Aug 29, 2008 18:55:45 GMT -4
So people kill because of words that say "love thy neighbour." How . . . human. Well, obviously. I mean, humans are obviously a kind of thing that needs to be told "love thy neighbor" is a good idea. I don't think anybody's ever made the argument that Jesus' teachings were redundant and unnecessary. But what I don't quite understand is wdmundt's argument that getting the good teachings of a mythical good person wrong, and doing bad things, is somehow more horrible than getting the good teachings of a factual good person wrong, and doing bad things. In both cases, the central point is that people are getting good teachings wrong, and doing bad things. The reality of the teacher isn't really relevant to the horror of the situation. IMHO, at least.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Aug 29, 2008 14:00:34 GMT -4
Wow, I couldn't disagree more. If Jesus was fictional, then all the death and destruction caused in his name would seem to be rather hideous. The world would be far better without that kind of fiction. Totally. All that death and destruction done in Marx's name wasn't very hideous at all, once you realize that Marx was a real person
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Aug 19, 2008 19:12:44 GMT -4
The moderators there are too touchy - always locking threads just as they become interesting. If, should you return to BAUT at some point, and were to point out to me a thread there that was locked just as it became "interesting", along with the specific points of interest[1] in its final posts, I would be much obliged
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Aug 19, 2008 15:59:15 GMT -4
Are you banned from viewing, or just from posting?
The "About BAUT" subforum has a "Banned Posters" thread, where the mods announce each banning, its duration, and the reason why. In your case, the reason given was a rules violation and a link was provided to the offending post.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Aug 12, 2008 13:59:57 GMT -4
So much for my plan of conclusively proving that Destro is COBRA's most awsome member. Destro? Please. Both The Baronness and/or Cobra Commander would win handily over Destro. Yeah? Let's see your petition, buddy.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Aug 12, 2008 13:53:23 GMT -4
Apparently Mr. Richardson, who was the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. for 19 months, forgot that Russia has a Security Council veto. Either that, or Mr. Richardson remembered that Russia, being a party to the dispute in question, must abstain from voting (and therefore cannot use its veto power in this case). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power#Article_27
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Aug 11, 2008 13:37:44 GMT -4
Exactly my point. My point was that petitions can't decide which of two alternate theories is correct. So much for my plan of conclusively proving that Destro is COBRA's most awsome member.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 30, 2008 16:18:56 GMT -4
Fair enough.
My point is simply this: "Because they claim to be" is not an adequate justification for considering anybody a member of some group.
You stipulate that there is a general definition of Christianity that encompasses Mormons, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and Jehova's Witnesses. Then, by implication, you also stipulate that this definition is "anybody who claims to be following the teachings of Jesus Christ".
But this definition is actually not agreed upon by the four groups you claim are covered by this definition. So there's one way in which it is not an adequate definition.
It also fails to consider the case where someone is mistaken about the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the case where someone is lying about their true beliefs.
It also, as a rational matter, is a meaningless definition. What, exactly, are the teachings of Christ, that you should claim to follow them? What, exactly, is the public perception of the teachings of Christ, that simply claiming to follow them is an adequate identifier to "outsiders"?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 28, 2008 14:48:28 GMT -4
Except that these terms have specific definitions and meanings. And I have a specific definition for "Christian" too: "someone who claims to be following Jesus' teachings." Going any further than that gets you unavoidably into the disputes of what those teachings actually are. Disputes, or even possibly agreements. But if you're not going to apply some standard as to what those teachings actually are, then why bother with claiming to follow them? It really seems like your definition of Christian is designed to let outsiders imagine their own idea of what you really believe, while simultaneously avoiding any concrete discussion about what you really believe.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 25, 2008 17:59:14 GMT -4
Except that these terms have specific definitions and meanings. There may be dispute or confusion about these definitions and meanings, but nobody denies that people must meet certain criteria to be accurately described by these terms. A Frenchman can't be an American simply by claiming to be an American: He actually has to be an American and not be a Frenchman. There is likely some dispute over exactly which shades of color are "blonde" and which are "brunette", but a brunette can't be a blonde simply by claiming to be. At best she can attempt to argue that by some worthwhile definition of hair colors, hers qualifies as blonde. Baldly demanding that chestnut-brown count as blonde because she says it does is not enough. And what would you make of a self-proclaimed "trekker" who turned out to passionately pursue all things Star Wars and didn't know Mister Spock from Doctor Spock?
Argument by analogy is difficult, though, because analogies break down, and its easy to dismiss them by focusing on the breakdown rather than the analogous portion.
My point with doctors and engineers, like yours with blondes and Americans and trekkers, is not that they're licensed, but that there are specific, meaningful definitions for those descriptors, and one cannot accurately describe themselves by those terms, unless they also meet those definitions.
And you miss my point about "worthwhileness" as well. If I say that "Buddhism" means whatever I want it to mean, regardless of what other people may mean by it, then there's no point in me claiming to be a Buddhist at all. Why should I describe myself as a Buddhist, if that will just give people the wrong idea about my beliefs? Why not simply describe myself as a Stutefishian, since that is what I really mean anyway?
I have no reason to call myself a Buddhist, unless I place some value on a definition of Buddhism that is true whether I believe it or not; or unless I wish those who do place some value on such a definition to think of me as meeting that definition.
If I proclaimed "I'm a painter: I write and perform pieces for the acoustic guitar, but that's okay, because a painter is anything I define it to be", what would be the point? Why not simply call myself a guitarist? How does it help to say that at least I'm helping scientists and professors and mechanics to identify me as an artist rather than as a member of their own trade or profession? And how does it make me a painter, when my definition of painter is truly at odds with the definition accepted by other painters. You can't be a painter simply by defining a painter to be whatever you are. Either the definition is true whether you like it or not, or there's no point in having one at all.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 25, 2008 15:47:18 GMT -4
If we define "christian" as "anybody who claims to be a christian", then while the definition is trivially correct, it's also practically meaningless.
Anybody who claims to be a "Christian" on this basis immediately enters into confusion and misunderstanding with anybody whose definition of Christianity differs from that of the claimant.
We don't consider all who claim to be Doctors as true practicioners of medicine. Some are actually faith healers. Others are homeopaths. Still others are outright charlatans.
Likewise, in some states have laws prohibiting a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer from advertising theirself as an "Engineer". The term is reserved for those who have obtained a formal degree and license in specifically-defined and strictly-regulated Engineering disciplines.
If I claim to be a Bhuddist, but upon examination you discover that I reject or am ignorant of all the core tenets of Bhuddism, then either I am very confused, or very dishonest, or both. Saying I'm a Bhuddist under such circumstances makes "Bhuddism" something not worth claiming.
If anybody could be an Engineer, simply by claiming to be an Engineer, without any regard for or adherence to anybody else's definition of Engineering, what would be the point of making the claim? Such a title would be worthless.
Now, I don't know much about how the tenets of individual faith in Mormonism differ from those in mainstream Protestantism. Perhaps they differ in minor, insignificant ways. Perhaps they differ substantially. Perhaps they are based on entirely different--and inarguably contradictory--source material. But to simply claim that both are Christian, as if the differnces between their definitions of the word are irrelevant, does great violence to the idea that Christianity is even meaningful at all. It's either very confused, or very dishonest, or both.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 25, 2008 15:20:21 GMT -4
It's the falling out of that relationship between creator and created.
|
|