Frank Apisa wrote:This will be a very limited response to your last post. I'll try to cover the other items at some point...but I think it was important to deal with this particular issue.
That's fine
it seems as if we have a very long road ahead of us (given all the "accusations" you apparently plan on making), and that's ok. It also seems that everyone here is fairly patient in waiting for people to respond, which is very much appreciated, due to the fluctuating demands of life.
Quote:Implicator...you wrote:
Quote:Now I know that certainly sounds like "do as I say but not as I do", and to some degree that is true, but the reason *why* this makes sense is to be found in the analogy of the "speeding" cop I have tried so desperately to get you to discuss with me.
Okay...I think I will discuss that analogy (and your follow up comments) with you at this time...although I have lots of concerns about doing so in what I consider a premature setting. I have lots of issues with that analogy...which I still consider defective to the point of uselessness...and we can discuss the problem and see if indeed it helps me to understand what you are saying here. Let's see where it goes.
Let me make a few comments here on the uses of analogies (at least by me) before we go any further. I have read your response below in its entirety, and can see already that you are expecting more from my analogy than even I intended to provide. Analogies are useful tools for demonstrating difficult to understand concepts. They are not intended to
prove anything, nor are they even intended to be perfect parallels of what it is they represent.
As stated, I believe my analogy clearly demonstrates the following concepts that I was attempting to share:
1) It is "acceptable" for the police officer to perform an action that would not be appropriate for the rest of us to perform, based on certain conditions - most if not all people understand and accept this. Analogously, it is "acceptable" for the god of the Bible to perform an action that would not be appropriate for the rest of us to perform, based on certain conditions. That many people do not understand or accept this is not damaging to my analogy - instead, it is the very reaction that I am attempting to elicit.
2) The "reasons" that is acceptable for the police officer to perform this action is because he is in a position of authority, he is able (trained, etc) to accomplish his task, and because the circumstances surrounding the action he is performing make it acceptable for him to do what he does, according to some "law". Analogously, the "reasons" that it is acceptable for the god of the Bible to perform basically any actions we might question are because
in all cases he is in a position of (ultimate) authority, he is able (omnipotent) to accomplish his task, and because the circumstances surrounding these actions make it acceptable for him to do what he does, according to some (Biblical) "law".
Now, these are the only concepts I was attempting to parallel in my analogy. The fact that the rest of my analogy may break down when inspected under a microscope is only a problem if you can show that your complaints impact my ability to demonstrate the above concepts. Even if there are such shortcomings, and even if they do damage to my ability to demonstrate these concepts, then I can always attempt a different analogy to demonstrate the concepts in question. Or, you can simply say "Implicator, I understand the concepts you are attempting to demonstrate" and we can move on.
On a side note, you *might* want to try to show, through the use of my very own analogy, that the concepts I am drawing from the Bible are internally inconsistent, or objectively wrong, and that's fine if you wish to do so.
********
Here is the analogy:
Quote:Quote:Let's say our discussion is about a guy who *you* claim is breaking the law by driving in excess of the speed limit. Now you make this claim to a group of people who think the world of this fella. They say to you "hang on now Frank, there is more to this guy than meets the eye!" And you say "I don't care about any other claims you make about him, other than this one claim - that he drove 95 mph in a 65 mph zone last Tuesday. He has clearly broken the law!"
You claim that since he drove 95 in a 65, and since the speed limit is 65 then it is oh so obvious (and the logical conclusion to boot) that this man is guilty of breaking the law.
It is at this point that this group of people drops the bomb. "Frank, this guy is a police officer, and he was pursuing a bank robber on the interstate last Tuesday. That is the reason he was driving as fast as he was. He was justified in doing what he did, based on his qualifications, his position of authority, and the circumstances at hand."
Well...if the first paragraph had represented that the people discussing this with me...and who think the world of this fella...had never actually seen the guy...and if they thought the guy, through some unexplained mechanics, had a great deal of influence over important areas of their lives such as their prosperity and their well-being...and that the guy had access to everything they were going to say during their discussion with me...and that what they had to say to me might be colored by concerns about that...
...you might be getting closer to a reasonable start to the analogy.
You bring up two areas that are (in my opinion) irrelevant to the concepts I was attempting to demonstrate. The concerns you raise do not impact the very limited parallel that I was drawing between the "rights" (for lack of a better word) that the officer has to do what would be "wrong" for us to do, and the "rights" that the god of the Bible has to do what would be "wrong" for us.
********
Quote:And instead of having them say that he was a police officer chasing a bank robber on the Interstate...they had said, "Although we have no clear and convincing evidence that he is a police officer...we are going to insist that he is a police officer. And, we are going to guess that he was chasing a bank robber" although we do not know for a fact he was...and even if he wasn't...he had some other perfectly good reason for speeding that if you could know it (which you can't) you would consider a valid reason for saying that he was not really breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit...
...you would be getting closer still.
This is actually a very valid concern,
from your perspective. The fact that these people might not have evidence that this fella is even a police officer, let alone that he was doing something "in the line of duty" could most definitely destroy the parallels I am attempting to draw. It might even (if pushed far enough) have some definite impact (via the analogy) on whether it makes sense for Christians to simply "accept" what this god has to say about himself, without seeing his credentials, and witnessing the bank robbery.
All I will state at this point is that my analogy
assumes the truth of the Bible (just as it assumes the person in question is in fact a police officer, that there was a robbery, that the officer is chasing the suspect
because of the robbery, etc.) This is not a problem for either my analogy or my position, however. Since we are talking about the "god of the Bible" (remember my comments on the "theory"), then it is totally acceptable to continue to draw this analogy, with the very clear caveat of "if the Bible is true". After all, unless you can objectively show that the Bible is
not true, then I would think we should at least consider it as true for the sake of argument.
********
Quote:Quote:See the problem here? If this fella is *really who they say he is*, then your argument loses all it's punch. If he is really a cop, who was chasing the "bad guy" in the line of duty, then it should be clear to see that he was not *unlawfully* exceeding the speed limit. But if you choose to ignore *the entire* story that these people present, then you are misrepresenting what they say.
Well...I can tell you that I have studied the Bible in great depth...and that I have, over several decades, engaged in numerous debates and discussion on it with some very learned people...including ecclasiastics...and, respectfully as possible, Implicator...that it is presumptuous to suppose that I an simply choosing to "ignore the entire story."
I most definitely am not. Nor am I misrepresenting what they are saying.
My comments about your choosing to ignore the entire story are based strictly on things that you have said in our discussion to date. For instance, any time I tried to bring up the (Biblical) concept of God not being subservient to humanistic standards of behavior (recall Romans 9:21), you dismissed it. If you have studied the Bible as much as you say you have (and I have no doubt at all that you have), then you certainly know that the Bible is filled with such comments. I am not presuming to know your background, or your knowledge of the Bible. What I am presuming to know is only based on my limited experience with you.
As to what other Christians might be saying, I can only say this. I am not defending someone else's view of the Bible, I am only defending mine.
Quote:Many of them are saying exactly what you are saying....which, reduces to "God can do no wrong...so anything he does has an explanation even if we do not know what it is. And no matter how evil and barbaric it might be to us lowly humans...we are insisting that there is a reason for the god to do it...and we are insisting that the god is not doing evil."
But that is not truly argument. That is rationalization, at best...and probably a lot less.
But I am *NOT* saying exactly what they are saying. It may appear that way, but as we delve further into our discussion, I hope that it becomes apparent that much of what I have to say is quite different from the majority of Christians out there. For instance, I will make one (apparently) minor change to the following statement:
Change
"God can do no wrong...so anything he does has an explanation even if we do not know what it is."
to the following statement:
"
If the Bible is true, then God can do no wrong."
Whether or not the Bible *IS* true is an entirely different discussion. The problem I see, however, is that you find it difficult to consider this theory
as a whole. That is, I have found to date that you mix and match a lot of what you find in the Bible with assumptions that you have about the world which are not found in the Bible. It may be that you feel you *know* that these assumptions are true, but I personally don't feel that it would be too difficult to demonstrate that you don't *know* these things at all.
********
Quote:Quote:You are, in fact, erecting a straw man of their beliefs about this fella. Not only are you not going to convince them that this man broke the law, you are probably going to get them upset at you for not considering the very parts of the story that makes this fella's excessive speed totally acceptable.
No...and Yes.
Frank, I have raised the objection that you consistently create a straw man of the Bible in order to argue against it, yet you have never attempted to rebut that charge (to my recollection) on any occasion (at least 2 or 3 times now). I would like you to specifically answer this charge at this point. I assume you know what a straw man argument is, so please respond to this charge.
Quote:Yes I am going to get them upset...but, No, not for "not considering the very parts of the story that make this fella's excessive speed totally acceptable"...but because I will not accept their guesses about why everyone should blindly accept some kind of reason why the fella's excessive speed is acceptable.
Okay...I'm gonna rest and let you respond...and take take the issue up again after your response.
But you
must accept
for the sake of argument their "guesses" if you are to argue against their beliefs. You don't have to accept them in reality, of course. But in order to avoid erecting a
here it is again
straw man you can't just pick out the sections that interest you, and avoid all the rest.
By way of example, I could do the same with you. I know you have claimed that you don't do "belief" when it comes to religion. I could say "oh yes you do" (in fact I did exactly this thing in one previous post), and then proceed to make a case against you which assumes that you *do* have religious beliefs. If I were to do that, and continue to press it, you would cry foul. In fact, you have done just that.
If I were to be non-fallacious in my argumentation, I would need to first show that you do, in fact, have beliefs, in order to base any arguments upon those beliefs. Otherwise, I would be inconsiderate in my dealings with you, and would upset you just as you upset Christians. The claims of the Christian are very, very detailed and extreme. And it is only from within those beliefs that things that we have been discussing make any rational sense. If you drop any of those beliefs from the "theory", then it all comes falling down.
Let me state it a different way. If I am going to argue about anything in the Bible with you, I am going to argue with the assumption that the entire Bible is true! I am doing this specifically because the Bible doesn't just make one or two claims - it makes claims about the universe, the people in it, their motivations, their past and future, how they debate with each other, etc, etc. Notice that this is not the same as claiming that the Bible *IS* true, but is simply a claim that *IF* it is true, then it fits together just nicely.
I
