Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pat Robertson on natural disasters
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 12 of 302 (250777)
10-11-2005 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Thor
10-11-2005 7:46 AM


I was watching that guy daily well over ten years ago and it was the same tune. Of course he made it sound more imminent with the whole millenium thing coming up.
He'd usually use each tragedy, or potential tragedy, to pinpoint a message God was sending. I am still waiting for him to explain the exact messages we have been getting... God lifts his hand and...
1) After Bush becomes Prez Islamic terrorists are allowed to succeed in a massive terrorist attack on the US, successfully destroying military and economic centers of power.
2) Shuttle flight used by Prez and Israeli PM as massive prideful gloating about their religions, stuffing it with religious iconography (a torah which survived the holocaust) and religious crewmembers, touted as holier than thou. Burns up across the US, specifically over Bush's home state.
3) Enemies escape our invasion of Afghanistan, and foil our supposedly timely victory in Iraq. This is not to mention the massive intelligence gaffes he caused,making us look really stupid.
4) Massive tidal wave hits Indonesia wiping out many people, yet intriguingly in one spot allows only a mosque to remain standing amongst the devastation.
5) Storms pound our southern coast, hitting our oil production power as well as our Prez's home state. Left alone is the supposedly sinfullest part of the nation, or at least the south.
6) After massive prayer campaign for God to remove those he does not like from the Supreme Court, one of the staunchest "conservatives" was struck dead, and another moderate conservative was forced off due to illness imposed on her husband (presumably by God).
7) A massive earthquake wreaks horrible damage on a nation allied with our cause.
Hmmmmmmmmmm. There is a pattern emerging, yes?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Thor, posted 10-11-2005 7:46 AM Thor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Omnivorous, posted 10-11-2005 12:08 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 40 of 302 (253271)
10-20-2005 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by crashfrog
10-18-2005 6:32 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
It would be like, if I called myself a "Nazi", and you started to castigate me for my hatred of Jews and black people, and my aims of eugenics and Aryan supremacy, and I said "wait, hold on buddy, I'm not one of those Nazis. Hitler? Couldn't stand him. What an asshole. He certainly doesn't speak for me."
I mean, how ridiculous would that be? If I don't want to be grouped in with, and associated with, the henious crims of Nazis, why on Earth would I call myself one? Why on Earth would you call yourself a Christian except to associate yourself with all the ideas, good and bad, that surround Christianity in our culture?
Maybe you should reach less for the hyperbolic comparison. Here's a more realistic one...
Do you consider yourself a US citizen? How about pro freedom and democracy?
Right now Bush and Co have claimed the mantle of leadership of all three. That is they came into a pre-existing entity (or entities) and crowned themselves leaders of such things and do indeed have many followers that believe they are the leaders of such things.
My guess is you would not claim you are anything but a US citizen, or that you are anti freedom and democracy. Instead you would say that these usurpers have stolen such titles and are inaccurately casting a shadow over their otherwise good name.
Of course on the US citizen thing, you'd still be agreeing to the genocide which we, unlike Nazi germany, successfully commited to have the nation we have today. Unless of course you can divorce yourself from past atrocities as well.
Although your analogy was not wrong, you reached for an obvious disparity rather than to try and find a similarity between what Jazzns was doing to something you might actually do. When confronting someone's position start by finding the similarities.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2005 6:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 10-20-2005 7:27 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 42 of 302 (253292)
10-20-2005 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
10-20-2005 7:27 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
It's called "reducto ad absurdum."
Once again showing that people at EvC like to pretend they understand logic when they don't. Choosing the opposite is not necessarily a reductio. It is usually choosing the same thing and extending it to a conclusion which is not necessarily desired by the opponent.
I am unsure whether Jazzns would find it curious that a person who claims to be a nazi would be surprised when people don't understand his actual position, but he would not necessarily have to suggest people should or should not. Thus your argument really doesn't reduce his position to the absurd... at least not to Jazzns.
You were arguing that it is mistaken to use the name of something that has a identifiable or popular leader or history if you do not share those exact same things. That is why I used an example of something you might ascribe to yourself, yet not want to reject simply because someone or some group is hijacking that name.
That is to say I was using a reductio... even if it did not work because you are willing to reject pro democracy/freedom labels.
I don't have a choice about referring to myself as a US citizen. That's a factual statement about my legal citizenship.
That citizenship is voluntary. What's more that has nothing to do with identifying yourself as US. Do you feel american and would you say to others you are an american? If someone said you must support Bush and the Iraq War because you are an American, would you say they are mistaken because you can be American and not a Bush supporter?
because of the exact influence to which you refer that I would think long and hard about applying them to myself; I would realize that to do so means that, in some minds at least, I'm associating myself with the likes of Bush or Pat Robertson.
That is fair, but then does not address the point you appeared to be making to Jazzns. Whether one should realize associations may be made errantly, due to generalizations, does not implicate the person who goes on to use the label, nor let the errant generalizer off the hook.
Would someone be right to say that being prodemocracy means supporting Bush and Bush's actions, or is it more accurate to say that being prodemocratic could include many other positions and one should not get lumped in with any specific other?
You were saying that people could be confused regarding what Xians might be like based on leaders like Robertson, while Jazzns was suggesting that Xian (like prodemocratic) is very broad and so such generalizations were errant and unfair.
As much as I agree mistakes could be made, and Robertson is a jerk, Jazzns is correct about overgeneralizing.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 10-20-2005 7:27 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 10-20-2005 7:53 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 51 of 302 (253451)
10-20-2005 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by FliesOnly
10-20-2005 2:49 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
I will ask you the same thing that I asked Crash, if someone said that since you are an american you must be for Bush and everything Bush has done would that be correct or incorrect?
But there appears to be something more...
It becomes a stereotype only after I learn that there are others in the group that do not fit my notions or ideas of what I thought constituted a member of that group. If no Christian(s) speaks up . .
So a person with negative experiences of a racial group gets to say bad things about every member of that racial group as a whole, until one of them speaks up to that person to disprove that person's ignorance?
Sorry but a stereotype is a stereotype. It is an overgeneralization regarding a group based on basically irrelevant criteria.
Robertson is not just a Xian, he is also a prominent US leader and a rich white person and a human being. Do all of those groups have to distinguish themselves as separate? If not, then why do all Xians have to?
He represents specifically one ministry within an evangelical community that is a Protestant denomination of Xianity. It seems that if one is to claim something other than stereotyping, comments related to that specific ministry would be the only appropriate ones.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by FliesOnly, posted 10-20-2005 2:49 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Chiroptera, posted 10-20-2005 3:44 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 60 by nator, posted 10-20-2005 7:14 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 81 by FliesOnly, posted 10-21-2005 9:07 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 58 of 302 (253493)
10-20-2005 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Chiroptera
10-20-2005 3:44 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
jazzns covered for me perfectly, so I won't add anything. Just letting you know I'm not ignoring your questions.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Chiroptera, posted 10-20-2005 3:44 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 79 of 302 (253612)
10-21-2005 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
10-20-2005 7:53 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
And if you don't understand that that's exactly what I did, then you shouldn't be throwing around accusations about who doesn't understand logic.
What you did could have been a form of raa, but was not necessarily as I explained. What's more I was responding directly to your description of what raa is, which was incorrect.
And all of this as an ad hoc defense for not admitting I suggested a better way of analyzing something?
Apples and oranges, Holmes. Or, if you can understand this, "fallacy of the false analogy."
There are people that can do logic, and there are people that like to pretend. If you stopped pretending so hard, trying to prove you can actually do it, maybe you'd learn something and actually be able to. Using terms does not mean you know how to use them properly. That is to say even if you find a correct label for an error, it does not mean you have made any leverage against an argument, nor advanced your own.
Practical issues of nationality are not relevant here, even if they were true (which they are not). It is only true that the mantle of citizen was applied to you by someone else without your choice, while Jazzns may or may not have had it thrust upon him. I know I was labelled a Xian as much as an American when I was born, and I had to renounce that heritage. Though easier and with less consequence as renouncing citizenship, it is still the same thing... voluntary to remain.
In any case the more important aspect was the self-identification portion...
I'd probably say that I was Canadian, in fact.
That is laughable. Maybe I am remembering someone else, but I believe you have posts here at EvC suggesting that it is not anti american or anti freedom to be anti Bush. And in any case I am sure you are aware of the true scotsman fallacy. Whether you want to now claim that you feel canadian is curious, but besides the point. Are you now suggesting that to be against Bush or his actions is to be antiamerican or antifreedom?
Pat Robertson is widely recognized as a leading figure and a spokesman for a large number of Protestant Christians. Irrefutable.
This is true. He leads an evangelist ministry within a protestant denomination of Xianity. You should note that he is also widely recognized as a leading american with direct ties to the white house and policy.
Jazz knows this. Yet, he takes the active step of identifying with the same label Pat Robertson chooses, when other equivalent lables would suffice.
What equivalent label? Jazzns did not say he was part of an "evangelist ministry within a protestant denomination of Xianity", he said he was a Xian. You used the very broad term of Xian, and Jazzns was pointing out that was errant.
Since you are trying to pretend to be a logician, perhaps you can figure out why Jazzns is right and the term for the fallacy you were commiting.
I consider myself and American, yet two American leaders... Bush and Robertson... do not speak for me and it would be errant for anyone to infer something about me from them.
For what reason should I believe that Christianity represents such a broad category, when its very vocal, appointed figureheads are typefied by a narrow range of views?
By having skills in logic and combining that with real life knowledge regarding a subject. It wouldn't take you more than 5-10 minutes using a computer to find out who Robertson represents and that many do not follow him and indeed oppose him.
American media is typified by a narrow range of views, so does that make america not broad in view?
I should also remind you that you do not have the benefit of hearing all the sermons from all the pulpits. What you usually hear is either outrageous commentary because it is exciting to the media, or commentary from those who have the money to broadcast their views publically... and want to do so.
Bush? The streets are filled with Americans demonstrating to the people of other nations that he doesn't speak for everyone. Where are the Christians opposing Robertson? Uselessly posting on internet forums, apparently, instead of revoking their tacit mandate for Robertson to represent him.
First of all people do oppose what Robertson says. Second he purports to talk for you sometimes and my guess is you don't go marching against him. Third why should people that feel he doesn't speak for them have to spend energy reacting to his commentary, if in fact he does not represent them.
The problem (notice your own apples and oranges coming back to roost) is that Bush is an elected official who really does represent all of us legally and officially through his actions while in office. Open protest against him is useful to show that while he does stuff officially in our name, he does not actually represent our will.
Robertson is a guy that claims to represent people and those that choose to listen to him he does represent, but otherwise his actions can be dismissed as that of a guy who wishes he was speaking in everyone's name. "Xians" certainly didn't vote that him into office of chief Xian.
What I'm asking is why, after outrage after outrage, Christians continue to remain silent about this guy, when they're so vocal about taking down other figures.
For the simple fact that many Xians don't view him as representing them and laugh at his antics the same way you would when he makes stupid commentary while claiming to be speaking for america, traditional american values, decency, and freedom.
As soon as you picket his home when he makes such commentary (or visits the president to discuss policy) perhaps your criticism will have more weight. Otherwise it looks like arbitrary picking on people that find him as offensive as you do, and equally not represented by him no matter what his claims.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 10-20-2005 7:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2005 7:57 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 86 of 302 (253663)
10-21-2005 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by crashfrog
10-21-2005 7:57 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
I'm under no obligation to parrot your debating technique, and despite your objections, my technique accurately and concisely comunicated my point in a logically valid way.
Parrot my technique? All I did was suggest that when looking at a position don't view it using analogies which contain contrary positions of your own. That shortcircuits the possibility that you will find their position might be amenable to your own. I didn't invent that, and it doesn't have to effect your writing style.
This sounds to me like those who keep claiming that logic and evidence are being used in some specialized way by evos and can be validly used in a different way.
An enormous ad hominem. Is there any reason I should respond to this? Suffice to say that I have collegiate-level training in formal symbolic logic, pragmatic linguistics, and rhetoric. No pretension necessary.
The first sentence is an ad hominem, perhaps a non sequitor. The second is not exactly an ad hominem, but is insulting (which is not the same thing). The rest is not.
Whether pretension is necessary or not, it appears to be going on. Instead of simply discussing issues you throw out terms as if that is supposed to have an impact on the argument. Indeed we are now a couple steps removed from arguments I have made which I can only assume was the point of your diversions.
You are certainly good at rhetoric and linguistics. But that does not get you anywhere in analyzing positions from a logic. Symbolic logic might be nice, but I am not seeing any indication that you are using it here. If you please, break down your argument regarding Pat Robertson and what you can say about Xians.
Sometimes people with a little education in something think they have enough. The etymology of the term sophomore is a very apt nod to this.
But the analogy is false for the reasons that I've given. Citizenship is a legal condition that is not changed on a whim, but as part of a bureaucratic process with the agreement of one or several governments. Citizenship remains the same until it is changed because its a recorded legal status.
I notice you did not go on to deal with my argument regarding why I said it was not relevant. I have admitted there is a difference (bureacratic assignment vs popular assignment), and if you want to hang your hat on that difference, I will allow it for argument's sake since I already stated the more important point was on self-identification. But one last time on the facts...
Citizenship is voluntary. You can renounce it if you wish at any time. Read up on it. Some nations are harder than others to leave, but US law makes it pretty easy. Gaining another citizenship can be hard, but renunciation is possible if you want.
knowledge of one's religious status requires active reporting on the part of that person.
That is not true. You will be labelled by your parents and that will be your default religion unless you change it. And again we are dealing with Xianity which has many different denominations.
If your logic is correct then it is the obligation of muslims to hold mass protests every time AQ releases a tape on the web, just so everyone knows that all Islam is not an extermist organization.
People that are not ignorant will have done research on the topic to avert stereotyping.
Oh, so I'm a liar, now? I didn't answer your little loaded questions the "right" way, so I must be lying? Dispicable.
I didn't say you were a liar. In fact I am accusing you of quite the opposite. I think you genuinely believe everything you say, but simply do not analyze your position to find out you are being inconsistent. Ad hoc and post hoc reasoning does that.
No, it doesn't make you pro-Bush to be pro-American. But here's the thing. Just as it's unreasonable for Jazzn to make an a priori expectation that outsiders to his religion have detailed knowledge about every little doctrinal split between himself and Robertson,
It is unreasonable for someone to expect others to not make generalizations and in fact research a topic before making statements? Why is that unreasonable?
It seems more the definition of unreasonable, to make statements which are generalizations based on admittedly a lack of knowledge regarding a topic.
Where am I going wrong?
since I do not want to associate myself with the policies of Bush, I would not identify as an American.
By de facto then you are admitting that Bush is right. Unless you are saying that as soon as he is out of power and someone you like is in then you become american again? What then is your definition of an American?
I might also add that Robertson is be definition only the leader of a ministry that is a denomination (subset) of Xianity. Thus no one should have to tell you that there are other denominations, or that those other denominations might oppose him.
Its sort of like having the governor of Florida say something and you have to protest to distinguish yourself from him, even though you live in Missouri. A foreigner ought to be cognizant that states are separate within the US, otherwise they just come off looking ignorant.
you would have seen that I had repeatedly noted these things already.
But you did not use them consistent with your point to Jazzns. I repeated that here.
If Jazzns is, as he says, only using the accurate label to describe his religious committment to follow the teachings of Christ, there's a dozen words to describe that. He's rejected all of them while giving no reason. I can only conclude that he refuses to adopt an alternate, equivalent moniker to "Christian" because he's too stubborn or proud; or else he does want to be associated with the movement that encompasses Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, and the Pope.
You do realize that Xians existed long before televangelists, right? The term is used to cover an array of different and sometimes contradictory positions. That is why there are denominational titles. You conclusion is bizarre and self-serving.
For a person who claimed very little knowledge of Xianity as an excuse to make your initial errant stereotype, you are now playing the arbiter of correct terminology for Xians. Pick a position and stick with it.
Stubbornly associate yourself in the minds of others with philosophies or actions you oppose, or take steps to distance yourself by changing your arbitrary group affiliations. I've offered Jazzns a way to do it that doesn't require anything on his part but simply a change in the way he answers a question ("what religion are you?"). That he stubbornly refuses to accept is one more instance of him perversely choosing to associate with Robertson.
This is repulsive. It has already been explained to you that Xainity can encompass many different beliefs and so Jazzns may be a Xian and Robertson may be a Xian yet they both hold different views and so Robertson cannot be said to speak for all Xians.
Its like you insist a rooster not be called a chicken since that is what you were told a hen was. Since you are not an insider you cannot claim what others should do about labelling themselves. You should be listenint to what they say and work with it.
Yes it would be confusing to have someone claim to be a Nazi who did not like Hitler, since Hitler essentially created the Nazis and brought them to power with no other group called Nazis to oppose him. Robertson did not invent Xianity and he did not bring them to power. Xians existed before him and outside him and opposed him.
You are trying to champion ignorance over reason and it is not going to fly.
What else am I supposed to draw from that except a conclusion that Jazzns offers his tacit support of Robertson?
Oh wait, now I see your point. All Islamic people must renounce their faith, or at least the name of their faith and adopt some terminology we will create for them which does not hold connotations we dislike (even if errant), or they de facto prove that they are on the side of the terrorists. Yes, quite convincing.
For that matter, a mixed metaphor that bad should be against the law.
Heheheh, I knew it was a mixed metaphor. I have been accused and found guilty of a bad sense of humor in the past. Nothing new. Of course that has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with rhetoric and perhaps linguistics. I would sooner mix all my metaphors than abandon reason.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2005 7:57 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2005 5:00 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 90 of 302 (253672)
10-21-2005 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by FliesOnly
10-21-2005 9:07 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
How would they know otherwise, unless I told them that I was a member of another party that opposes Bush's policies? So if I remained quite...then "yes" they would be correct.
They would not know... either way... that is the point. To label you as pro Bush because you are an American is to commit a logical fallacy. Those that do so cannot plead that there ignorance is rational. They are ignorant and they made an error.
Of course if someone makes that mistake you must then correct them. First to explain that their knowledge is lacking, and then that their logic is errant so that they do not make the same mistake again. It appears that you and crash wish to champion ignorance and logical fallacies as a form of reason. It is surreal.
But how do you think stereotypes get started in the first place Holmes?
Stereotypes are started in the way you outlined, negative experiences mixed with a lack of knowledge and logic which allows that ignorance to perpetuate itself. My question to you is why is the fact that stereotypes can occur and argument that they are not fallacious and acceptable?
When a person is caught using a stereotype should it not be that person who admits his mistake and apologizes and learns to be more careful in the future, and not insist that others dispell his mistakes before they happen in the future?
Also, what if the experiences are all positive? Does that make a difference to you, or is it only when someone says something disparaging about others that it becomes a stereotyped?
Stereotypes come in all forms. What makes you think I'd think otherwise?
I've always hated how people pull out the word "stereotype" whenever they feel they or others are being criticized.
You are now putting words in my mouth, many many many word in my mouth. That little rant had nothing to do with my post. You will note that my definition was quite neutral and could be positive or negative. They are both erroneous.
Neither did I call you a bigot, though now that you mention it you sure seem to be. But that's okay, I do not like Xianity, probably even the type that Jazzns practices.
In the end though a stereotype is defined by using a neutral fact based analysis. Are you making a statement about a group which is overgeneralized based on irrelevant criteria. In this case it should be obvious. Xianity is a huge group and so the fact that Robertson is a Xian is irrelevant to what can be said about all Xians, since the relevant criteria would be based on his subunit (denomination and ministry).
Its like saying all white people must be blond because I saw a white person and he was blond. Blond is a subunit of whites. To suggest otherwise is ignorance on your part. To suggest such a mistake is reasonable and should be catered to in this day and age, is willful ignorance.
his is the conclusion I have come to based on this thread... How was that?
That was the same (ie as odious) as the comments I have heard from Canadian Steve regarding Islam. I do not expect muslims to have to protest and announce they are not terrorists, and in fact change their name away from Islam, in order to understand many are against the militant Islamic factions and not terrorists.
I cannot be sure, but do you demand the same thing with regard to muslims, or is your conclusion only applicable to Xians. I have certainly heard worse things coming out of the mouths of Islamic extremists who claim to be their leaders.
So do you think these groups need to speak out to prevent themselves from being linked to Robertson’s word? Personally, I don’t...
Now elucidate. It makes no difference what this particular thread is about. If the principle stands then it stands for all. Otherwise you are simply being arbitrary.
It's not my job to interview every other Christian on the planet to see if they agree or disagree with his statements.
No, but if you are going to be a reasonable person then it is your duty to practice logic and become informed based on evidence. You shouldn't have to ask each and every person to disconfirm your errant presumption about them.
You cannot be serious. He represents a whole helluva lot more than that Holmes. Why do you think he broadcasts his show out over the airwaves?
Huh? He broadcasts to reach as many people as possible. Just because you get his signal does not make you a follower of his. What makes you a follower of his is to be part of his ministry which is a denomination of Protestant Xianity. He only speaks for himself and those that follow him. How hard is that to understand?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by FliesOnly, posted 10-21-2005 9:07 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by FliesOnly, posted 10-21-2005 3:51 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 94 of 302 (253717)
10-21-2005 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by FliesOnly
10-21-2005 11:38 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
But when members of these groups feel they are being incorrectly characterized...THEY SPEAK UP!
I don't think anyone has argued that when someone is being mischaracterized they do not need to speak up. Indeed Jazzns did speak up, and look where it got him.
That is to say...what is the magic number that would justify the assumption that...well...that he must be speaking for certainly a majority, if not the entirety, of Christians?
The answer is not so magical, absolutely NO number would justify the assumption he is speaking for a majority of people beyond the characteristic of those he actually represents. If YOU do not understand who he represents, and can't spend a couple minutes to disabuse yourself of a mistaken notion, then that is your problem and not anyone else's.
I still don't get why you and Crash are defending ignorance. Yes I, and I assume Jazzns, understand how people come to incorrect conclusions, but that does not exonerate the ignorant for their ignorance. It is an explanation and not an excuse.
We have both discussed what error is being commited and how to avoid it and yet you both return to a position that the mistake happens all the time and so it is reasonable. Common and able to be understood is not equal to reasonable.
In truth, maybe it's because he is my only basis of comparison.
Actually that's not true. You don't seem to to even get him correctly. He has been in fights with other ministers and if you actually listened to him you would know this. It appears that what you know is based only on excerpts played in the media regarding some of his more colorful commentary, which is unlikely to include reactions from others in the Xian community as it will often be less colorful.
Wouldn't it be more prudent for you to ask: "Hey FliesOnly, why do you hold this view"? Instead though, you get upset when I lump you all together.
Why would it be prudent to ask why you hold the view you do, when it is obvious. You are mistaken.
The prudent thing to do is to first correct your ignorance regarding the facts (Robertson is not just a Xian but leader of a specific subset antagonistic with other factions and so patently does not speak for all Xians), as well as with your logic so you are unlikely to make this mistake again.
Isn't the prudent thing for you to do is not use an argument from incredulity and instead recognize that if you are about to take a position on a topic you should do a little bit of research first?
This message has been edited by holmes, 10-21-2005 03:08 PM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by FliesOnly, posted 10-21-2005 11:38 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Chiroptera, posted 10-21-2005 3:24 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 97 by FliesOnly, posted 10-21-2005 4:09 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 100 of 302 (253759)
10-21-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by FliesOnly
10-21-2005 3:51 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
You seem to think in unrealistic terms Holmes.
That one shouldn't make overgeneralized statements on topics one is admittedly not knowledgable regarding? Whoa, sorry for being so wild and crazy!
I guess there’s a forth option, which would be to make no assumptions . to remain vacuous and form no opinion...
The third is the most realistic assumption but a form of the fourth is the only practical solution. Why must it involve being vacuous and have no opinion, to come to the conclusion you don't know and so should not make generalized statements, confining commentary to Robertson himself or specifying "anyone that actually does believe in him"?
Have you seen any well known Christians (those with a platform similar to Pat Roberts) get up and denounce him? I sure haven't, so how am I to know I am in error?
Yes. Other ministries fight him publicly and even other evangelicals. My guess is if you actually watched him and his show instead of simply claiming that you know anything about him, you might know this. Interestingly enough he sometimes gets challenged on his own show by his own people.
I watched one show where he suggested the US should kill the relatives of terrorists, and two separate cohosts began arguing with him on air. It was hilarious. He kept saying how effective that would be and they kept reminding him the US in general and evangelicals in specific are supposed to be better than that.
It should be pretty easy for you to figure out if you have ANY knowledge on a subject, and SUFFICIENT knowledge to make generalized claims.
Do you feel pretty certain you can make comments on brain surgery, specifically what they feel is the best method for reaching tumors that are not topical, or do you realize you should keep your mouth shut until you know a bit more?
Gee, maybe they could speak up and show us why we are mistaken in our assumption(s). Yet they do not.
I'm sorry but one just did, and the both of you have turned on him. Crash has even claimed that Jazzns should not call himself a Xian because that confuses crash.
I have also shown you why you are mistaken in your assumptions and how not to make the same mistake in the future. That you keep deriding this as unreasonable is beyond me.
But hey, thanks for assuming I'm a bigot...I guess it shows I'm making my point.
I didn't assume. You appeared to be saying that I was calling you one. I said that I had not said that, but if you want to know you are looking that way. That was based on your comments, not on what someone else said and I linked to you through a dubious generalization. And as should be obvious I didn't even say that I thought you were. I had thus far followed my own advice. I kept my mouth shut to assess with more info, and at best suggested what your personal comments seemed to suggest.
Television, on the other hand is a huge medium for dispensing information. It's unfortunate...but for many people it may very be the ONLY way they get their news.
Then watch his show or when he is on talk shows. He can often be seen paired against other ministers, or clips of opposition ministries are played. This is still not an excuse for ignorance.
I watched the guy for quite a while, from one show you should be able to figure out he is not actually speaking for all Xians.
No . instead they speak up and denounce terrorism and militant extremists claiming to be Muslims.
"They" do? Really? All of them get up and do this? And so the ones that do not we should feel safe to assume it is because they are terrorists?
Canadian Steve said about the same thing as you did but it was solely against Islam. Sorry that the ref was meaningless.
Instead, TV serves as my primary (overwhelmingly so) source of news. I'm pretty much fucked...aren't I. Guess I'll just have to remain a dumb, ill-informed, uneducated bigot.
Given that you are making comments on an internet forum, then if we are discussing reality (which is what you wanted to stick to) there is no reason to bring up this hypothesis to cover you or crash. Both have sufficient means to correct this.
But lets say there is someone without the internet, and only TV. Then if they can get the 700 club, or talk shows in which PR is involved they should be able to figure out he is not speaking for all Xians. But lets get even simpler. Why not walk to a church and ask someone about Pat Robertson?
Yes, to wallow in ignorance is willful ignorance. It doesn't get any more justification due to lack of funds.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by FliesOnly, posted 10-21-2005 3:51 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Jazzns, posted 10-21-2005 4:52 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 101 of 302 (253765)
10-21-2005 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by FliesOnly
10-21-2005 4:09 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
in my World, people make assumptions like this all the time.
They do in mine as well.
Apparently your answer is to call them ignorant bigots.
You just put words in my mouth again.
Mine, however, is to tell them why they are mistaken. And to do that, those that feel stereotyped should speak out.
I agreed with this, and this...
the "cure" is simple. SPEAK OUT!
Why is it hard for you to grasp this?
The only difference between you and me is that I have said that speaking out includes an additional plank, which is to explain how to avoid the error they commited.
I also do not coddle the person that made the mistake and speak to those who are speaking out as if to rationalize that the others might not be ignorant and indeed made an honest mistake by stereotyping.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by FliesOnly, posted 10-21-2005 4:09 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 105 of 302 (253778)
10-21-2005 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by crashfrog
10-21-2005 4:31 PM


Re: Waaaaait a minute
I don't understand how anyone can be a Christian who rejects the Bible.
This is a mistake. There were Xians long before there was a Bible. The Bible is a collection of writings, a subset of all writings, within the Xian community.
At the time of the collecting and canonization there were disputes on pieces selected and non selected for entry into the final Bible. Even once the first edition was set, it has not remain unchanged. There are differences between current versions of the Bible, beyond mere cosmetic word choices.
Part of the disputes between denominations mirror the disputes during the original collecting of the Bible. Some sections are not considered pertinent and/or to be taken literally.
It is true that revelations, if considered a factual prediction, literally does say exactly what you just said. However there is no reason any Xian must view it that way. It would not be antiXian to in fact wholly reject that portion of the Bible, or any other portion.
The Protestant movement in specific opened up ways of interpretation, and some were to take it much more literally than it had been taken before. There is some evidence that much of the Bible was not considered factual, and rather allegorical at the time of its writing and later collection.
Some have even suggested that Revelations was more or less practical code to other Xians about their ascent over the Roman empire and not at all a theological discussion.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2005 4:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2005 6:02 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 110 of 302 (253806)
10-21-2005 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
10-21-2005 5:00 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
What you suggest doesn't sound like a way to make my point sunderstandable or compelling; it doesn't sound like a clear way to make the shortfalls in my opponents argument more apparent. So I'm simply not interested in it. It's worthless to me
Well you are almost right. It wasn't meant for you to improve your attack, it was meant for you to improve your understanding. You may not be interested, but it was not worthless.
This is a sad commentary on your purpose for debate, and the way you evaluate logical tools.
You could stand to learn a few things about brevity.
This is true. This is a problem of mine. However you need to increase your stamina in reading and your tools of comprehension and logic.
Unfortunately you use concise points incorrectly even when you do correctly apply a label. I tried to make that point, but I guess you have not understood what I meant.
Maybe that's why you didn't see any indication that I was using symbolic logic? Because I wasn't? C'mon. Try to keep up.
Just to let you know, this is one of your "tells". When you are lost you almost always resort to the "try to keep up" claim.
Let me try to explain this to you once again. You detailed your knowledge base to say that you did not need to pretend you had skills in logic. I said that two of the skills had nothing to do with logic, and you apparently did not use your skill in symbolic logic or you would have found the problem within your own argument. Then I challenged you to do it.
"Try to keep up."
Oh by the way symbolic logic is not useful in discussion, but it is useful in comprehension. I keep trying to suggest ways to improve your comprehension so as to improve the level of debate, not how to present your argument to someone else.
As I have already said you seem skilled in rhetoric. The problem is that if it is a cousin to logic, it is most certainly the black sheep of the family. It is more correctly known as sophistry. You need to use real logic to imrpove analysis before moving on to rhetoric.
Well, it turns out that what people might assume about his beliefs is slightly different that what he predicted they would assume. But instead of changing his identity, he's calling me a "bigot" for reporting this truth to him.
The problem is that the only people who will make those assumptions about his beliefs will be ignorant people. He wouldn't necessarily be right to say bigot, but he would be right to say errant and sterotyping.
He is under no obligation to change his identity to solve someone else's ignorance. Why would anyone be?
Only if people who know you know the religion of your parents.
Yeah? And? That does happen.
Jazzns identified himself in order to discuss your error. It seems odd for you to turn it around on him and say he should have identified himself as something else within YOUR system of knowledge, rather than you correcting your system.
Christianity connotes a minimum set of required beliefs. From those minimum beliefs, on which Robertson's remarks were based, and which I go into detail about in post 98, I came to a conclusion about the god that Christians worshipped.
The first sentence is true, the rest is errant. I have explained why in a reply to the post you cited.
As it happens, moderate Muslims have done a great job of making clear the distinction between jihadist Muslim terrorism and moderate, peaceful Islam.
If you believe moderate Xians have not made a clear distinction between themselves and the more extreme elements as muslims have then you are equating lack of equal media coverage, or your lack of media watching, with their inability to make a distinction.
As I have already pointed out elsewhere, Robertson himself, on his own program has disputes with other Xian factions.
And I might add to this, your point is still open with regard to muslims. Is it correct that a muslim who has not participated against the extremists is be default to be considered a terrorist?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2005 5:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2005 5:58 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 119 of 302 (253953)
10-22-2005 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by crashfrog
10-21-2005 5:58 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Because I understand his point, I know that he's wrong. Otherwise I wouldn't be arguing with him.
But your example showed you did not truly understand his point, nor your own. I was suggesting a way to approach an argument so that you can examine your opponent's argument as well as your own.
It appears all you are interested in is defending a preset opinion. As I said, that is a shame.
I'm trying to craft compelling arguments for my point of view, for which rhetoric and informal logic is the proper tool... The proper tool for the proper job, Holmes. We're done with this.
But in an actual debate, these are not the sole proper tools. I think it is interesting that you condemn creos for doing essentially the same thing, yet feel it is sufficient for you. Faith and Canadian Steve are very good at crafting arguments for their point of view. The problem is they need to be examining their point of view because there is a flaw. The same goes for you here.
You know, I'm starting to catch on when you make jokes. This one was almost funny.
Heheheh.
But to complain that people thought something different than what he expected, and make that their fault, is petulant.
Doesn't this beg the question of who is making the mistake you are describing? You said something based on your expectations of what Xianity is. You were being told that your expectation was wrong. This is being done not only by a Xian, but a nonXian who just happens to know more than nothing about Xianity, and something more about Robertson.
You seem to be assuming that your expectation is accurate, and so he must conform. What you should be realizing is that your position is errant and he doesn't have to change a thing.
For example let's say I never heard of evolution before outside of mocking derisive commentary that it says life appeared suddenly out of nothing, and that there is nothing but a natural world (ie no gods possible). Do I get to tell evos that do not believe this that they must choose a new name because that is not my understanding of what an evo is?
How does that make any sense?
What error? Does the Bible say what I said it said, or does it not? Nobody's advanced an argument that I was in error.
Yes someone did, posts ago. I see you have replied to that after this post so I will discuss it there.
Then I'd be glad to be proved wrong. Where can I see these reports?
I already said where you can find them. If you actually watched his show, or the news programs which feature him, they usually involve dissenting comments from other denominations.
You might check out the Wiki entry on Robertson where it explains what he is and who he can speak for. In that you will find an interesting quote from Robertson...
Claim that some denominations contain the spirit of the Antichrist
On January 14, 1991, on "The 700 Club", Pat Robertson attacked a number of Protestant denominations when he declared: "You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."
If you want to believe that that did not result in a reaction from those denominations, and a lasting enmity where they speak out against him, you are certainly a curious fellow. It also clearly delineates who he does NOT speak for.
He even has infights with other evangelists. One of the larger recent flareups, was between him and Falwell prior to the 2004 election.
What his common detractors don't get is completely equal airtime as they are not as outrageous in their commentary (so it is not as good "news" to spread around), and they aren't televangelists with their own networks and so can get their message out 24/7 in the media.
Jesse Jackson is one of the few public Xian personalities who frequently spars with these guys and media like to pick up on his commentary.
If a redneck didn't see Hussein and Iraqis deny their connection to 911 and WMDs, would that mean they didn't deny it, or that they had such things?
Really, your defense of ignorance is repulsive.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2005 5:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by crashfrog, posted 10-22-2005 10:16 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 120 of 302 (253954)
10-22-2005 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by crashfrog
10-21-2005 6:02 PM


Re: Waaaaait a minute
If it wasn't clear, however, the context of my remarks was the present day, where no other sources of Christ's teachings exist.
Are you reading my posts or not? I addressed the present day. I moved from the past to show that the Bible was not considered completely literal and all sections inerrant in the past, then that modern denominations reflect those original divisions and Bibles can be different (with missing passages).
Thus there is STILL NO SINGULAR SOURCE FOR THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST. Does bold help you read what I write?
If you can show me the single copy of the Bible, identical among all Xians, and taught with the same interpretation between denominations (even if the same copy), then I'd be interested. Otherwise this is just more of your ignorance on this topic.
What on earth do you think denominations mean, and why they have warred on each other, and continue to fight today? Oh yeah, you think they don't fight today.
What's the interpretation of those passages, then, that means that Christ's return will not be heralded by destruction?
There are many different interpretations. The one I grew up with in my church was that revelations was allegorical in nature. It was discussing the types of tribulations men will suffer through before coming to an understanding that will bring lasting peace. In that state Christ will have returned or will return. I suppose that's much like the Buddhist concepts of working through the sufferings of this world in order to achieve wisdom on suffering and the true path to harmony.
They certainly did not believe in an end time that was coming and that violence would be inflicted on many. My denomination focused on forgiveness and peace.
That said they still believed a bunch of other stuff I disliked and so I parted from them. I find some interesting philosophy in Xianity, but cannot accept the actual underpinnings of the religion which all must ascribe to. Literal interpretation of every part, especially revelations is not one of those underpinnings.
Interesting; are we to infer anything at all about the nature of God from Revalations? Does it have any merit as Scripture at all?
If you are really interested in the answer to this, why not look things up. I have actually addressed this topic briefly elsewhere at EvC. The short version is to say that you really can't say anything about what the Xian God is like, only what a specific denomination's version of the Xian God is like.
My church was very nice (peaceful) and quite opposed to the lunacy and violence of evangelism. It was not deist in nature (it believed in some of the miracles), but did attributed violent aspects only to righteous anger and even then sometimes only as stories to let you know right from wrong.
Do I think that is inconsistant? Yes. But the point is the Bible itself is inconsistant. You will find God described as generally incapable of such destruction and that in fact he is wholly destructive. It is a mish mash of writings on God with the only "true" message being what image you take out of the rorschach of ink stain on paper.
Intriguingly you have to remember that Xianity was an addition to Judaism, so there are conflicts between the two. How is that explained? And there are some that claim that Xianity was solely a gnostic religion, in that the actual meaning was hidden within the more fatuous fairy tales, and the real meaning was lost when the original gnostic sect was crushed. Heheheh.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2005 6:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024