Religion III

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Same result. The story told at the beginning does not the story match heard by the guy at the end.

One can have a hermeneutic of suspicion or faith, in the generic sense, about any historic, cultural "handing on" of tradition. Prior epistemological commitments will usually decide which hermeneutic the individual chooses.

A Christian with any appreciation for God working in history will trust that he protects the handing on of Revelation intact. The skeptic will not. Nothing new.

I seem to recall something mentioned about theism, or at least Christianity being nothing more than a power grab. One of the fathers of the "hermeneutic of suspicion" was Nietzsche, quoted below from The Antichrist .

"What is good? - All that heightens the feelings of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? - All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? - The feeling that power increases - that a resistance is overcome.”

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

One can have a hermeneutic of suspicion or faith, in the generic sense, about any historic, cultural "handing on" of tradition. Prior epistemological commitments will usually decide which hermeneutic the individual chooses.

A Christian with any appreciation for God working in history will trust that he protects the handing on of Revelation intact. The skeptic will not. Nothing new.

I seem to recall something mentioned about theism, or at least Christianity being nothing more than a power grab. One of the fathers of the "hermeneutic of suspicion" was Nietzsche, quoted below from The Antichrist .

"What is good? - All that heightens the feelings of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? - All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? - The feeling that power increases - that a resistance is overcome.”

Sounds like the unwritten platform of the Democrat Party -- the Party of Power.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Huh?

There's a psychology experiment described in some college textbooks. There is a group of subjects (say ten people, the actual number is not critical). The first subject is lead into a room and shown a picture of two men, one white and one black. The white man is holding a kitchen knife.

The picture is removed. the second second subject is brought into the room and the first subject is asked to describe the picture to the second subject. The first subject is then sent home.

This is repeated with subject n describing the picture to subject n+1 after which subject n is sent home.

Finally the last subject is asked to describe the picture to the experimenter.

In the last subject's description the kitchen knife has become a switch blade knife. It is in the possession of the black man who is holding it at the throat of the white man.

The point is that the final description does not match what the picture actually shows.


The results can be made to vary. Are all the subjects male or female or a mix. Are all the subjects white, all black or a mix. The result changes if the person holding the kitchen knife is female and the other person is male (in which case the final description has the male holding the knife and threatening the female.)


Conclusiion: Oral tradition does not pass information accurately.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Sounds like the unwritten platform of the Republican Party -- the Party of Power.

FTFY!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

There's a psychology experiment described in some college textbooks. There is a group of subjects (say ten people, the actual number is not critical). The first subject is lead into a room and shown a picture of two men, one white and one black. The white man is holding a kitchen knife.

The picture is removed. the second second subject is brought into the room and the first subject is asked to describe the picture to the second subject. The first subject is then sent home.

This is repeated with subject n describing the picture to subject n+1 after which subject n is sent home.

Finally the last subject is asked to describe the picture to the experimenter.

In the last subject's description the kitchen knife has become a switch blade knife. It is in the possession of the black man who is holding it at the throat of the white man.

The point is that the final description does not match what the picture actually shows.


The results can be made to vary. Are all the subjects male or female or a mix. Are all the subjects white, all black or a mix. The result changes if the person holding the kitchen knife is female and the other person is male (in which case the final description has the male holding the knife and threatening the female.)


Conclusiion: Oral tradition does not pass information accurately.

It served God's purpose until the written form of communication came into vogue. Again, I appeal to Job 19 whereby Job had remarkably deep theological knowledge for his time, which the rest of the bible has subsequently affirmed.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

FTFY!

No, you have it all backwards, as usual. This is why the dimwits hate the Constitution because it restricts federal government powers. As I recall during the covid "pandemic crisis", it was the blue states who flew their flags of tyranny over their citizens. You need to get your memory checked out. It appears that it's shot.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

As I recall during the covid "pandemic crisis", it was the blue states who flew their flags of tyranny over their citizens.

That's vague. I suppose it would be asking too much to ask for specifics.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You need to get your memory checked out. It appears that it's shot.

Ad hominem attack! What qualifies you to make such a determination?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

That's vague. I suppose it would be asking too much to ask for specifics.

Where were you during the "pandemic crisis"? Hiding under a rock somewhere? Since you have to ask, it certainly appears to be the case. Therefore, far be it from me to disturb your comfort blanket of ignorance.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Ad hominem attack! What qualifies you to make such a determination?

Not at all. It must be shot to ask such utterly stupid questions.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Where were you during the "pandemic crisis"?

I was getting my shots. No one forced me to do it. Did someone force you to get your shots? No? Then where do the "flags of tyranny" come in?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I was getting my shots. No one forced me to do it. Did someone force you to get your shots? No? Then where do the "flags of tyranny" come in?

How many people had to choose between losing their jobs or getting the jabs? Just because you and I weren't affected, doesn't mean millions of others weren't.

You need to break the bubble to the tiny universe you live in.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How many people had to choose between losing their jobs or getting the jabs?

I don't know of any who had to make that choice. If you do then cite a source.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

As I recall during the covid "pandemic crisis", it was the blue states who flew their flags of tyranny over their citizens.

Exactly how do you date the "pandemic crisis?" I.e., when did it start and when did it end? Or is it still ongoing?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Exactly how do you date the "pandemic crisis?" I.e., when did it start and when did it end? Or is it still ongoing?

Crawl back under your rock where you obviously are far more comfortable. If you don't know what has been going on for nearly 3 years now, why would you want to know at this late date?