Question for Christians

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
Ancient genres don't develop and die with the rapidity later made possible by the invention of the printing press. Revelation is late 1st century; the Apocalypse of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas are first half of the second century. That's pretty close.

That aside, what's your point? That Revelation isn't actually a work that should be considered in light of a larger group of literature?

That aside, what's your point? That Revelation isn't actually a work that should be considered in light of a larger group of literature?
Hardly, but you likely don't need me to tell you that your thinly disguised disdain for Christianity taints virtually every post. Your point is the issue, not mine. Your intent is to chip away at the trees in order to discredit the forest. You do this with condescending dismissals exhaled with the breath of an inferred subject knowledge. Said knowledge is (at best) superficial; at worst, a danger to you and any who may fall victim to the allure of 'inside information.'

You are in no position to declare:
"Factuality has little to do with it," under any label other than half-baked opinion, and yet you pawn it off as though you were an expert.

You used to be a believer? Congratulations, and I'll see you in heaven: we'll have a good laugh then about your obstinance now.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]That aside, what's your point? That Revelation isn't actually a work that should be considered in light of a larger group of literature?
Your point is the issue, not mine. You do this with condescending dismissals exhaled with the breath of an inferred subject knowledge. Said knowledge is (at best) superficial; at worst, a danger to you an ...[text shortened]... ons, and I'll see you in heaven: we'll have a good laugh then about your obstinance now.[/b]

Hardly, but you likely don't need me to tell you that your thinly disguised disdain for Christianity taints virtually every post.

I don't quite get where this is coming from. I didn't start this thread, but the person who did asked a question that had to do with a literal interpretation of hell. I threw in the comment about factuality & Revelation because I thought it was germane.

Your intent is to chip away at the trees in order to discredit the forest.

In fact, I'm asking you all many of the questions I asked myself, and throwing some of the conclusions at which I arrived out there, in order to see what you do with them.

So far, you're not making much headway. You think that's fun for me to watch?

You do this with condescending dismissals exhaled with the breath of an inferred subject knowledge. Said knowledge is (at best) superficial; at worst, a danger to you and any who may fall victim to the allure of 'inside information.'

I think you mean "an implied subject knowledge." The speaker implies; the listener infers.

I don't claim to be an expert. I do feel pretty confident in the things I write, because I gave them enough careful thought that I developed that confidence. If folks want more data when I assert things, say so! My claims should be tested.

You are in no position to declare: [b]"Factuality has little to do with it," under any label other than half-baked opinion, and yet you pawn it off as though you were an expert.[/b]

This is the kind of statement a person makes when they can't come up with an actual rebuttal.

Anytime a person posts, regardless of what evidence he or she is presenting, he or she is essentially presenting an opinion. Most people think their opinions happen to be right and true. Otherwise, they likely wouldn't hold them.

I post my opinion, and I back it up as I'm able. Am I a professional biblical scholar? Nope. Do I have some degree of access to what such scholars say? Some. Not all that much. I do, however, understand something about the uses of evidence, and I manage to write well enough to sound like I'm literate.

So why do you keep whining about my motives? I'll tell you right out: I want to test the validity and integrity of your faith. To do that, I'll use anger, humor, cajolery, conscious questioning techniques, and personal anecdote. Most of all, I'll use the most convincing arguments I can devise. Most of them first worked on me.

It would be an insult to you were I not to try my hardest to kick your asses in debate. I found it insulting when my own xian friends refused to grapple with this stuff when I was drowning in it. It's your responsibility to rise the challenge.

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
Hardly, but you likely don't need me to tell you that your thinly disguised disdain for Christianity taints virtually every post.

I don't quite get where this is coming from. I didn't start this thread, but the person who did asked a question that had to do with a literal interpretation of hell. I threw in the comment about factuality & Revelation when I was drowning in it. It's your responsibility to rise the challenge.[/b]

I don't quite get where this is coming from. I didn't start this thread, but the person who did asked a question that had to do with a literal interpretation of hell. I threw in the comment about factuality & Revelation because I thought it was germane.
I see: because you are the voice of fundamentalism, for which the original poster was searching? Strike one.

In fact, I'm asking you all many of the questions I asked myself, and throwing some of the conclusions at which I arrived out there, in order to see what you do with them.
Presumably, you though of and asked the questions first and came to your currently held positions in due course. For the rest of us, it's just a matter of time then, eh? Apparently those who remain in faith are simply afraid of the deep water you've courageously chartered (and conquered).

So far, you're not making much headway. You think that's fun for me to watch?
You assume the issues with which you've grappled can have but one conclusion. Perhaps you just haven't looked with an open mind. Furthermore, you haven't given any evidence, per se, but rather citations unsupportive of your declarations and vice versa.

I think you mean "an implied subject knowledge." The speaker implies; the listener infers.
No, I meant what I wrote. Writer and speaker are both equally capable of inferrence.

This is the kind of statement a person makes when they can't come up with an actual rebuttal.
This is the kind of statement a person makes when they can't come up with an actual rebuttal.

I want to test the validity and integrity of your faith.
Por que? Do you truly consider your standards that much higher than mine? Somehow you have prevailed against all obstacles to arrive at the pinnacle, and now presume to instruct me toward the right path? Do you even know the right questions to ask?

You want to test a man's faith? Weigh how he lives, not how well he argue points of minutiae.

It's your responsibility to rise the challenge.
Thanks for the loving reminder. Sheesh.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I don't quite get where this is coming from. I didn't start this thread, but the person who did asked a question that had to do with a literal interpretation of hell. I threw in the comment about factuality & Revelation because I thought it was germane.
I see: because you are the voice of fundamentalism, for which the original poster was searching? ...[text shortened]... ponsibility to rise the challenge.[/b]
Thanks for the loving reminder. Sheesh.[/b]

Presumably, you though of and asked the questions first and came to your currently held positions in due course. For the rest of us, it's just a matter of time then, eh? Apparently those who remain in faith are simply afraid of the deep water you've courageously chartered (and conquered).

You presume much.

As I wrote, I didn't conquer; I lost. My belief eroded over time, until it wasn't recognizable as a faith anymore. You may or may not have had a similar experience; regardless, I certainly don't hold myself above you. If you perceive that to be the case, then I assure you that you are mistaken.

You assume the issues with which you've grappled can have but one conclusion. Perhaps you just haven't looked with an open mind. Furthermore, you haven't given any evidence, per se, but rather citations unsupportive of your declarations and vice versa.

I assume that the issues with which I've grappled had a particular conclusion (if indeed it is an end point) in my case. Your suggestion that I haven't looked with an open mind is ridiculously presumptive at best and insulting at worst.

No, I meant what I wrote. Writer and speaker are both equally capable of inferrence.

Not in the way you phrased it. A speaker cannot infer something about himself or herself (e.g., possession of subject knowledge). That said, did you mean to suggest that what I consider my own knowledge is itself based on faulty inferences concerning biblical scholarship? That is, I generalize and make unsupported claims?

If so, please be specific about it. You questioned my characterization of a set of apocalyptic texts as contemporary to Revelation, but you didn't go any further. If you didn't like the answer I gave there, then let's get back to it.

Por que? Do you truly consider your standards that much higher than mine? Somehow you have prevailed against all obstacles to arrive at the pinnacle, and now presume to instruct me toward the right path?

We missed each other here. When I say I want to test the validity/integrity of your faith, I do not mean "faith" in the sense of your own personal belief, your walk with God, your personal integrity, etc. I mean I want to test the validity/integrity of xianity. I'm using "faith" there the way that someone would use it when they refer to "people of many faiths".

It was a general (if sloppily worded) comment on my aims, not a specific description of what I intend with respect to any individual here. Certainly not you, with whom I've had the briefest of exchanges and about whom I presume to know nothing.

Do you even know the right questions to ask?

We'll soon see. I know the questions I did ask, and for which I received crappy answers. I in turn will be interested in the questions you consider to be right, and of course any other answers you can provide.

What say I post one of my pesky questions in a separate thread, together with the reasoning I used and the answer at which I arrived? You could dive in there and crack away at the question, its presuppositions, the reasoning and evidence I present, the answer I suggest, or any combination of the above. It's hardly academic discourse, but it will be straightforward.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Specifically for Christians who believe in a literal Hell. I've always assumed that you regarded it as existing in some other dimension or plane of reality. But recently I came upon some literature that suggests that some of you believe it's actually in the core of our own Earth.

What's the fundamentalist line on that?

"Hell" is a literal place that does not yet exist. My belief, and it is biblical, is that the demons, unbelievers and anyone thrown into the lake of fire, will "burn up", and the result are ashes. In other words they will cease to exist.

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
Presumably, you though of and asked the questions first and came to your currently held positions in due course. For the rest of us, it's just a matter of time then, eh? Apparently those who remain in faith are simply afraid of the deep water you've courageously chartered (and conquered).

You presume much.

As I wrote, I didn't conquer; I lost. ...[text shortened]... he above. It's hardly academic discourse, but it will be straightforward.[/b]

I apologize for the long pauses: too many irons in the fire prevents getting back in here as often as desired.

As I wrote, I didn't conquer; I lost.
The conquest was in reference to insight--- and/or proper perspective regarding reality--- gained. Following your quest for 'the truth about matters spiritual,' you came to (what was for you) the inescapable conclusion that Christianity was not the answer, purportedly or otherwise, for reasons numerated and/or soon to be revealed.

Your suggestion that I haven't looked with an open mind is ridiculously presumptive at best and insulting at worst.
You'll have to be satisfied with insulting on this one, although certainly not intended as so. It is not presumptive on my part to conclude that your investigation was without an open mind, insofar as it speaks to that which you have revealed to date. What you have held up as reasons for rejection thus far are reflective of superficial perception of historical realities. The issues you have revealed so far have all been put to bed years before your doubt began awakening.

Not in the way you phrased it. A speaker cannot infer something about himself...
Really?
"Infer has been used to mean “to hint or suggest” since the 16th century by speakers and writers of unquestioned ability and eminence..."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infer

That being said, when you carefully choose your words and phrases to lead the reader toward a specific conclusion regarding a subject matter, you necessarily also choose words and phrases which hint at or suggest that you are one of those guys who are spekaing from experience and/or expertise. Is such knowledge implied? Yes. But it can also be said to be inferred.

That is, I generalize and make unsupported claims?
So far, yes. However, once support is brought forth, said support will fall under minimal scrutiny.

I know the questions I did ask, and for which I received crappy answers.
God often gives us exactly that for which we are looking. He's funny that way.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Really?
"Infer has been used to mean “to hint or suggest” since the 16th century by speakers and writers of unquestioned ability and eminence..."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infer

Yes, really. Moreover:

1. Your definition is #4 in the list of usages in the dictionary you reference. That means it isn't a primary, a secondary or even a tertiary use. This runs counter to your own standards of dictionary reference (see your post in Thread 58945, on Dec 29th 2006), to say nothing of best practices used in the publishing industry or the academy.

2. You redact the original entry for the usage you reference, so as to exclude the qualifying comment. Here's the whole entry:

"Infer has been used to mean “to hint or suggest” since the 16th century by speakers and writers of unquestioned ability and eminence: The next speaker criticized the proposal, inferring that it was made solely to embarrass the government. Despite its long history, many 20th-century usage guides condemn the use, maintaining that the proper word for the intended sense is imply and that to use infer is to lose a valuable distinction between the two words.
Although the claimed distinction has probably existed chiefly in the pronouncements of usage guides, and although the use of infer to mean “to suggest” usually produces no ambiguity, the distinction too has a long history and is widely observed by many speakers and writers." (emphasis mine)

3. Virtually every other dictionary that includes a description of your usage of "infer" accompanies the description with a similar -- or even harsher -- qualifying note (cf. The American Heritage Dictionary, also referenced at your URL, and in which the usage again comes fourth, or the Merriam-Webster Online ). Reaching for my own copy of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition (okay, I had to get up and go over to it -- it's not a book you just reach for), I found your usage listed, again in fourth place, immediately accompanied by the following note: "This use is widely considered to be incorrect, esp. with a person as the subject."

It's a minor point, but it does appear that you consciously lifted only the portion of the relevant information that supported your perspective, and left out that part of the relevant information that detracted from your point. Should I expect you to employ similar approaches elsewhere in our discussions? After all, as a certain man is traditionally held to have said, "whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much" (Luke 16:10).

Making a mistake is one thing; we all do it. But shoot straight with me: in this instance, were you being a teensy bit intellectually dishonest?

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
Yes, really. Moreover:

1. Your definition is [b]#4 in the list of usages in the dictionary you reference. That means it isn't a primary, a secondary or even a tertiary use. This runs counter to your own standards of dictionary reference (see your post in Thread 58945, on Dec 29th 2006), to say nothing of best practices used in the pu ...[text shortened]... ght with me: in this instance, were you being a teensy bit intellectually dishonest?[/b]

Are you seriously reading and comprehending the very things you post? Truly you cannot be; the very quotes you provide argue against your point!

The portion that you italicized uses the example of a speaker in the act of inferring--- just as I said of you. Many usage guides condemn the use: as you pasted, the "claimed distinction has probably existed chiefly in the pronouncements of the usage guides."

While you may be keen on losing the point in a barrage of distracting trilfles, I will kindly refocus the issue. Without ambiguity, I claimed that you presented an air of confirmed knowledge on the subject matter and that such assumption was ill-placed. Instead of addressing what was clearly a calling out of your self-positioning, you opted to zero your sights in on an insignificant (but clearly not without merit) use of a single word.

Let me ask of you now: do you plan on employing this method for all of your arguements, or can we expect more honesty in the future?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The portion that you italicized uses the example of a speaker in the act of inferring--- just as I said of you. Many [b]usage guides condemn the use: as you pasted, the "claimed distinction has probably existed chiefly in the pronouncements of the usage guides."[/b]

No. The italicized portion was italicized in the original (which you know), so I left it that way and used bold to emphasize the rest of the text you omitted.

I included the entire usage entry, because it underscores the extent and nature of your redaction.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Maybe I'm dense, but I don't find an answer to my question in there. Where, physically, is the Lake of Fire?

Does it matter where? The point lives will be cast there is enough isn't it?
Kelly