Failed prophecy.

[ruby sparks]

I just think it is more accurate to say that I am Christian than not, all things considered.

I think I see how that works. If Jesus was a dud prophet, it doesn't matter. You're not that sort of Christian. Got it. Neat belief system. Foolproof, in a wishy-washy way.

One of the best ways not to be wrong is to stay vague. If only Jesus had realised that too.

 

[Politesse]

I just think it is more accurate to say that I am Christian than not, all things considered.

I think I see how that works. If Jesus was a dud prophet, it doesn't matter. You're not that sort of Christian. Got it. Neat belief system. Foolproof, in a way.

One of the best ways not to be wrong is to stay vague. If only Jesus had realised that too.

Well, yeah. Better to remain silent than speak folly. I much prefer things that way. Why talk about things I don't know?

 

[ruby sparks]

Why talk about things I don't know?

Right. But you believe you know there's a god. It's just that he/she/it (or any of his/her/its alleged prophets) doesn't/don't have to actually be or do anything, in particular, to qualify. In a way, your ideas of god (whatever they may be) rely only on vague things inside your own head.

By the way. don't think I'm trying to deconvert you. I'm not even sure what I'd be deconverting you from for starters.

Essentially, you seem (to me) to be saying that you don't know anything about god, but you believe he/she/it exists anyway.

 

[Politesse]

Why talk about things I don't know?

Right. But you believe you know there's a god. It's just that he/she/it (or any of his/her/its alleged prophets) doesn't/don't have to actually be or do anything, in particular, to qualify. In a way, your ideas of god (whatever they may be) rely only on vague things inside your own head.

By the way. don't think I'm trying to deconvert you. I'm not even sure what I'd be deconverting you from for starters.

I am and always have been agnostic on the existence of the various potrayals of God, or other deities and spirits for that matter. I don't apologize for that, it has just always seemed like the most rational position to me.

 

[ruby sparks]

I am and always have been agnostic on the existence of God. I don't apologize for that, it has just always seemed like the most rational position to me.

You tend to assume he exists though. Right? Basically. As a default.

- - - Updated - - -

Or when you say, "Who am I to speak for God?" do you mean, "if god exists, who would I be to speak for him/her/it?"

 

[Politesse]

I am and always have been agnostic on the existence of God. I don't apologize for that, it has just always seemed like the most rational position to me.

You tend to assume he exists though. Right?

Not really. Well, god obviously exists. As a social fact, at least. But I don't think any particular philosophy or religious tradition has a superior leg to stand on when it comes to explaining God's nature, nor do I think it is necessarily as important a question as most people seem to think it is. I get that some people crave certainty at all costs, but I am not of that orientation.

 

[ruby sparks]

Not really. Well, god obviously exists. As a social fact, at least. But I don't think any particular philosophy or religious tradition has a superior leg to stand on when it comes to explaining God's nature, nor so I think it is necessarily as important a question as most people seem to think it is. I get that some people crave certainty at all costs, but I am not of that orientation.

So when you say, "Who am I to speak for God?" do you mean, "if god exists, who would I be to speak for him/her/it?" or "Who am I to speak for the idea of god, since that's all I'm sure exists?"

"Who am I to speak for God?" is an odd sort of thing to say, imo, if one isn't assuming god actually exists. It seems to presuppose an actually existing, indeed speaking entity at the very least.

 

[Politesse]

I am and always have been agnostic on the existence of God. I don't apologize for that, it has just always seemed like the most rational position to me.

You tend to assume he exists though. Right? Basically. As a default.

- - - Updated - - -

Or when you say, "Who am I to speak for God?" do you mean, "if god exists, who would I be to speak for him/her/it?"

I think my original sentence makes sense no matter what you think God is. If God is nothing more than a powerful Durkheimian metaphor, or a Marxist communal delusion, it makes even less sense to declare yourself its sole seneschal.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think my original sentence makes sense no matter what you think God is.

Not to me. If it had been speak about god, instead of speak for god, maybe.

I think god is just an idea (or ideas) in the minds of humans. Nothing more. I don't think you do.

 

[ruby sparks]

I am and always have been agnostic on the existence of the various potrayals of God, or other deities and spirits for that matter. I don't apologize for that, it has just always seemed like the most rational position to me.

But we're not talking about the existence of the portrayals. In fact, being agnostic about the existence of the portrayals doesn't make any sense. They clearly do exist. I can't for the life of me think why you put the matter that way, but fudging springs to mind.

Isn't there a slight contradiction in saying 'who am I to speak for god?' and also saying you don't necessarily believe god exists?

To be honest, I think that is part of the reason some of us heathens here sometimes wonder what your position actually, really is, or whether your agnosticism is something of a convenience, in discussions, to allow you to avoid.....the aspects of belief in god which are in some way problematic to justify. Such as dud prophets of god.

"into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God". Etc. And no, I am not necessarily using that line in exactly the same way that Shakespeare, or Nietzsche, or whoever, originally used it.

 

[Politesse]

I think my original sentence makes sense no matter what you think God is.

Not to me. If it had been speak about god, instead of speak for god, maybe.

I think god is just an idea (or ideas) in the minds of humans. Nothing more. I don't think you do.

No, I don't. But I'm willing to entertain the thought, just like anything else people say about the matter.

 

[Politesse]

I am and always have been agnostic on the existence of the various potrayals of God, or other deities and spirits for that matter. I don't apologize for that, it has just always seemed like the most rational position to me.

But we're not talking about the existence of the portrayals. In fact, being agnostic about the existence of the portrayals doesn't make any sense. They clearly do exist. I can't for the life of me think why you put the matter that way, but fudging springs to mind.

Isn't there a slight contradiction in saying 'who am I to speak for god?' and also saying you don't necessarily believe god exists?

To be honest, I think that is part of the reason some of us heathens here sometimes wonder what your position actually, really is, or whether your agnosticism is something of a convenience, in discussions, to allow you to avoid.....the aspects of belief in god which are in some way problematic to justify. Such as dud prophets of god.

"into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God". Etc. And no, I am not necessarily using that line in exactly the same way that Shakespeare, or Nietzsche, or whoever, originally used it.

Why would I want to justify any of that in the first place? I'm not and never have been nor have ever aspired to be unthinking.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think my original sentence makes sense no matter what you think God is.

Not to me. If it had been speak about god, instead of speak for god, maybe.

I think god is just an idea (or ideas) in the minds of humans. Nothing more. I don't think you do.

No, I don't. But I'm willing to entertain the thought, just like anything else people say about the matter.

Hey, I am willing to entertain the thought. But you wouldn't catch me me saying 'who am I to speak for god? Because that seems to imply more than merely entertaining the idea.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would I want to justify any of that in the first place?

You wouldn't want to. That's sort of the point. You're smart. You know which side of the bread your beliefs are buttered on. Not the best use of an idiom. I accept that. Implies you deliberately choose what suits you. I realise you don't do that.

I'm not and never have been nor have ever aspired to be unthinking.

I would never have suggested you are, do, or had (aspired to that).

 

[Politesse]

No, I don't. But I'm willing to entertain the thought, just like anything else people say about the matter.

Hey, I am willing to entertain the thought. But you wouldn't catch me me saying 'who am I to speak for god? Because that seems to imply more than merely entertaining the idea.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would I want to justify any of that in the first place?

You wouldn't want to. That's sort of the point. You're smart. You know which side of the bread your beliefs are buttered on. Not the best use of an idiom. I accept that. Implies you deliberately choose what suits you. I realise you don't do that.

I'm not and never have been nor have ever aspired to be unthinking.

I would never have suggested you are, do, or had (aspired to that).

Why on earth would I deliberately believe something that "doesn't suit me"???

And yes you have, indeed you have been insulting me in various ways for several pages now.

 

[DBT]

The prophesy appears to have failed, nothing happened as described within the given timeframe, or anytime since....so what are the implications of that failure for theists?

They had to do what all followers of a Millenialist prophet do after the end: adapt and find a way to reframe it. I happen to have the acquaintance of some people who went through this very experience a few years ago, when Family Radio predicted the end a bit early and had to dodge... twice.


I note that the timeframe in which this conversation must have been had is the very century we know least about. There are almost no documents hailing from the generation immediately following Jesus' death. Just Paul's letters, the genuine ones that is, and contested mentions in the works of Josephus, Clement and others. Some material evidence, like Christian graffiti on walls. And maybe, depending on who you ask, the gospels themselves, including the one we are discussing here. It is interesting to note that the person who set this book into print almost certainly knew that Jesus wasn't coming back while the apostles yet lived. Even by a conservative estimate, they would have been getting old, and in all likelihood had passed entirely by the time the Gospels reached their final drafts.

But by 'adapting and reframing,' are they not rationalizing failure, thereby maintaining false beliefs and a fatally flawed world view?

 

[Politesse]

The prophesy appears to have failed, nothing happened as described within the given timeframe, or anytime since....so what are the implications of that failure for theists?

They had to do what all followers of a Millenialist prophet do after the end: adapt and find a way to reframe it. I happen to have the acquaintance of some people who went through this very experience a few years ago, when Family Radio predicted the end a bit early and had to dodge... twice.


I note that the timeframe in which this conversation must have been had is the very century we know least about. There are almost no documents hailing from the generation immediately following Jesus' death. Just Paul's letters, the genuine ones that is, and contested mentions in the works of Josephus, Clement and others. Some material evidence, like Christian graffiti on walls. And maybe, depending on who you ask, the gospels themselves, including the one we are discussing here. It is interesting to note that the person who set this book into print almost certainly knew that Jesus wasn't coming back while the apostles yet lived. Even by a conservative estimate, they would have been getting old, and in all likelihood had passed entirely by the time the Gospels reached their final drafts.

But by 'adapting and reframing,' are they not rationalizing failure, thereby maintaining false beliefs and a fatally flawed world view?

I should say so.

 

[DBT]

But by 'adapting and reframing,' are they not rationalizing failure, thereby maintaining false beliefs and a fatally flawed world view?

I should say so.

So where does that leave religious belief as a way of seeing the world? And of course, faith itself as a means of sorting fact from fiction.

 

[Politesse]

But by 'adapting and reframing,' are they not rationalizing failure, thereby maintaining false beliefs and a fatally flawed world view?

I should say so.

So where does that leave religious belief as a way of seeing the world? And of course, faith itself as a means of sorting fact from fiction.

About the same place as Evolutionary Theory after Piltdown was unmasked, or Socioeconomics after Lenin. One person being wrong about one thing means everyone who shares a label with them is wrong about everything? Really? That's what you're going with?

Non sequitur. Non omnino.

 

[DBT]

So where does that leave religious belief as a way of seeing the world? And of course, faith itself as a means of sorting fact from fiction.

About the same place as Evolutionary Theory after Piltdown was unmasked, or Socioeconomics after Lenin. One person being wrong about one thing means everyone who shares a label with them is wrong about everything? Really? That's what you're going with?

Non sequitur. Non omnino.

How is that a fair comparison? These fakes in science were uncovered with the application of science. Once uncovered, nobody was in a position to rationalize what are clear cases of fakery.

 

[Politesse]

So where does that leave religious belief as a way of seeing the world? And of course, faith itself as a means of sorting fact from fiction.

About the same place as Evolutionary Theory after Piltdown was unmasked, or Socioeconomics after Lenin. One person being wrong about one thing means everyone who shares a label with them is wrong about everything? Really? That's what you're going with?

Non sequitur. Non omnino.

How is that a fair comparison? These fakes in science were uncovered with the application of science. Once uncovered, nobody was in a position to rationalize what are clear cases of fakery.

And yet, Leninists abound.