Did Jesus have a conscience?

[stevencarrwork]

Is it really true that people in Biblical times (and Jesus is a person in the Bible - somewhere near the back, if I remember rightly) did not have a conscience?

[MuggleOrSquib]

The question, regarding "people in Biblical times" having consciences, has an obvious answer. Both based on Paul's letter to the Romans and on numerous philosophical and ethical texts from Biblical times, I would conclude that most people in that period had consciences. From an agnostic stance, I would assume on both a probablistic basis and on a textual basis (Gospels, Agrapha, ...) that Jesus had a conscience.
From a psycho-neurological point of view, 'conscience' involves the activities of a certain area of the brain. Those whose brains are insufficiently active in that area tend to act as if they lack a strong conscience. There is no evidence that this area of the brain or its activity is new.
I am not, by the way, stating that personhood is completely a function of neurology. Those aspects of personhood which transcend neurology are not susceptible (at least currently) to neurological or biological examination.

Odd question. Sounds rhetorical.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[Jaltus]

Jesus may not have, since He never did anything to feel guilty about.

;)

[MuggleOrSquib]

HA HA HA!
Of course, a sociopath never does anything to feel guilty about either.

Does that mean Jesus was a sociopath?
;)

[Sheepdog]

you really love pestering Holding, dont you? :smile:

in a shame/honor society, social conscience would be more relavent than an internal conscience. think of it this way, when you do something you know is wrong, and other people know you did it and think less of you because you did it, don't you feel worse than if no one knew? that is social conscience. in a collectivist society, privasy is a rarity, so when you did something wrong, most of the time everyone would know about it sooner or later.

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 07:40 AM
Sheepdog:


in a shame/honor society, social conscience would be more relavent than an internal conscience. think of it this way, when you do something you know is wrong, and other people know you did it and think less of you because you did it, don't you feel worse than if no one knew? that is social conscience. in a collectivist society, privasy is a rarity, so when you did something wrong, most of the time everyone would know about it sooner or later.

So you are saying Jesus did not have a conscience?

As for your claim that when you do something wrong, you don't feel bad about it, if other people don't know about it, this is not a feeling I am aware of.

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 06:38 AM
Jaltus:

Jesus may not have, since He never did anything to feel guilty about.

;)

Judas did. Did he ever feel guilty about anything?

[Faramir]

Hey Steve.

For clarity sake, could you gives a definition of what you mean by conscience?

Thanks

[Pilgrim]

03-14-2003 @ 06:35 AM
stevencarrwork:



Judas did. Did he ever feel guilty about anything?

Since he killed himself over it, I would say yes.

[Pilgrim]

03-14-2003 @ 01:50 AM
MuggleOrSquib:

HA HA HA!
Of course, a sociopath never does anything to feel guilty about either.

Does that mean Jesus was a sociopath?
;)

That's a bit of a mis statement. Sociopaths do plenty to feel guilty about but are, as a function of chemistry, not able to feel guilt over them, or even know they should feel guilt. That's quite a difference from never having done anything to feel guilty about.

[spl_cadet]

Of course He had a conscience. All humans have one (though we can ignore them) and Jesus was fully human so He obviously had a conscience.

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 03:22 PM
spl_cadet:

Of course He had a conscience. All humans have one (though we can ignore them) and Jesus was fully human so He obviously had a conscience.

I can't see you being brave enough to defend that view against Holding, just as your view that Jesus assumed the Heavenly throne in 33 AD was also destroyed by Holding.

[Piebald]

I can't see you being brave enough to defend that view against Holding, just as your view that Jesus assumed the Heavenly throne in 33 AD was also destroyed by Holding.


http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif

Having arguments destroyed by Holding hasn't seemed to slow you down. :wink:

[Pilgrim]

Do we have to degrade so quickly into pedantic name calling and ad hominems?

[Faramir]

03-14-2003 @ 11:08 AM
Hamster:



http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif

Having arguments destroyed by Holding hasn't seemed to slow you down. :wink:



:rofl:

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 04:08 PM
Hamster:

Having arguments destroyed by Holding hasn't seemed to slow you down. :wink:

Does that mean you think Jesus did not have a conscience, contrary to the view of every Christian poster on this thread?

[Xmansmommy]

Steven, may I ask where you heard people in biblical times didn't have a conscience? Just curious. Thanks.

[Jaltus]

I think if you defined what a conscience was, then maybe we could get down to brass tacks.

Ok, that is one of the weirder idioms I use.

[Piebald]

Agree - what do you mean by 'conscience' exactly? A little nagging voice or sensation that helps us determine the right course of action?

[Piebald]

Steven, may I ask where you heard people in biblical times didn't have a conscience?

Well, basically he's trying to make people 'outraged' or 'shocked' at something that J.P. Holding has claimed (and backed with scholarship) about the psychology of ancient peoples. He's done this before (Holding says that the Gospels are contrived - do you agree?)

You can see this article for further information:

http://www.tektonics.org/tillstill7-5.html

"One raised in a shame-oriented, collectivist society would "feel" no such thing at all. Comparing one of us to one of them, and pretending that the one we don't personally experience is ridiculous by example, isn't an actual answer, and Stevie has none, other than trying to smear Malina and Neyrey (and you can bet he won't write Neyrey and tell him he's wrong, either) and missing so bad his conscience should blow up on him and spread itty-bitty Stevie bits all over the M5. Here's the rub, and it runs out from some nice, colorful charts in this link at the end which will remind Stevie of his Crayola set: In this guilt-oriented society, if Stevie really drives like this, he is expected to feel guilty whether the police stop him or not. In a shame culture, if the police miss him, he feels nothing; if he is caught, he is guilty (not "feeling guilt" -- rather, culpable) and is shamed (not "feeling guilty"); if he actually didn't drive that way, but people nevertheless believe he did, he is still shamed and dishonored. Either way, at the time of David, the guilt-orientation simply wasn't there to make David "feel guilty" as Skeptic X supposed and as Rohrbaugh soundly corrected him on."

[Faramir]

03-14-2003 @ 11:52 AM
Jaltus:

I think if you defined what a conscience was, then maybe we could get down to brass tacks.

Ok, that is one of the weirder idioms I use.




03-14-2003 @ 11:58 AM
Hamster:

Agree - what do you mean by 'conscience' exactly? A little nagging voice or sensation that helps us determine the right course of action?

I've already asked that once here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=34970#post34970) .

Well Steve, we're waiting.:zzz:

[Sheepdog]

03-14-2003 @ 06:31 AM
stevencarrwork:

So you are saying Jesus did not have a conscience?

actually, yes i did. are you intentionally trying to create a false dilemma? Jesus would have had an internal conscience, i believe, but the social conscience would have been paramount.


As for your claim that when you do something wrong, you don't feel bad about it, if other people don't know about it, this is not a feeling I am aware of.

i don't know what the heck you are talking about? i said you would have less emotion over it, not none at all. you need to stop thinking in black and white, lest you miss all the colors.

i'll ask again, i'll spoonfeed it so you can understand: would you feel more or less remorse if you knowingly did something wrong and other people knew about it, vs. if people didn't know?

[Sheepdog]

i think from now on, we should rename Steven "the Artful Dodger." because he seems to be able to dodge real issues quite well.

Steven, define conscience as you are using it. why can't social conscience be a form of conscience? why does it have to be black or white? if you can't answer these questions, then i'll assume you are beyond response (in terms of irrationality, not polemic genius)

[johnransom]

03-14-2003 @ 10:08 AM
Hamster:



http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif

Having arguments destroyed by Holding hasn't seemed to slow you down. :wink:

That's because getting pushed over a cliff tends to speed you up.:teeth:

[johnransom]

03-14-2003 @ 10:52 AM
Xmansmommy:

Steven, may I ask where you heard people in biblical times didn't have a conscience? Just curious. Thanks.

He heard it from JP, as confirmed by Richard Rohrbaugh, the Biblical social sciences scholar, in a personal e-mail to tIll's sidekick Kesler. Steven stuck his two cents' worth in and got burned. You can read the whole hysterical debacle at JP's page titled Losing Your Shirt While Sewing a Mitten (http://www.tektonics.org/tillstill7-5.html).

This is just Steven trying to sow dissension again.

[spl_cadet]

03-14-2003 @ 07:29 AM
stevencarrwork:
I can't see you being brave enough to defend that view against Holding, just as your view that Jesus assumed the Heavenly throne in 33 AD was also destroyed by Holding.

Did he destroy it? I didn't notice as I didn't keep up in the topic or debate him at all on it. I really don't care about Preterism and all that, I think it's wrong but it's one of those liberty things where it doesn't matter. And what does Holding have to do with this anyway?

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 05:01 PM
Faramir:







I've already asked that once here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=34970#post34970) .

Well Steve, we're waiting.:zzz:

Don't you have dictionaries in America?

Are you saying you don't know what a conscience is?

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 05:13 PM
Sheepdog:



actually, yes i did. are you intentionally trying to create a false dilemma? Jesus would have had an internal conscience, i believe, but the social conscience would have been paramount.

I quite agree, but there are people who don't agree with your very sensible point of view

http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.html

'It would shock the average pew-sitter to be told such things as that: persons in the world of the Bible did not have what we would call an internal conscience:....'

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 02:58 PM
stevencarrwork:
I quite agree, but there are people who don't agree with your very sensible point of view

http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.html

'It would shock the average pew-sitter to be told such things as that: persons in the world of the Bible did not have what we would call an internal conscience:....'

What's your point? This is one of those things where we are perfectly at liberty as Christians, it doesn't matter which stance we take on it.

[stevencarrwork]

From my dictionary conscience :- the sense of right and wrong that governs a persons thoughts and actions.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 11:01 PM
spl_cadet:



What's your point? This is one of those things where we are perfectly at liberty as Christians, it doesn't matter which stance we take on it.

Ah, if only Holding said that atheists were perfectly at liberty to take any stance they like on it.

But if atheists agree with Christians on one topic, then other Christians start calling them names. It's a hard life.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 03:20 PM
stevencarrwork:
Ah, if only Holding said that atheists were perfectly at liberty to take any stance they like on it.

But if atheists agree with Christians on one topic, then other Christians start calling them names. It's a hard life.

Then just become a Christian. Problem solved :teeth:

[Freak]

Today @ 05:59 AM
stevencarrwork:

Is it really true that people in Biblical times (and Jesus is a person in the Bible - somewhere near the back, if I remember rightly) did not have a conscience?


Very interesting question.

[Pilgrim]

Today @ 06:15 PM
stevencarrwork:

From my dictionary conscience :- the sense of right and wrong that governs a persons thoughts and actions.


By that definition then yes, definately, as evidenced by Christ's prayer in the garden..."If it be your will take this cup from me, but not my will be done but yours."

[Faramir]

Today @ 05:53 PM
stevencarrwork:



Don't you have dictionaries in America?

Are you saying you don't know what a conscience is?

Well I know what I mean by conscience, but I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.

[stevencarrwork]

Yesterday @ 05:00 PM
Hamster:

http://www.tektonics.org/tillstill7-5.html

"One raised in a shame-oriented, collectivist society would "feel" no such thing at all. Comparing one of us to one of them, and pretending that the one we don't personally experience is ridiculous by example, isn't an actual answer, and Stevie has none, other than trying to smear Malina and Neyrey (and you can bet he won't write Neyrey and tell him he's wrong, either) and missing so bad his conscience should blow up on him and spread itty-bitty Stevie bits all over the M5. Here's the rub, and it runs out from some nice, colorful charts in this link at the end which will remind Stevie of his Crayola set: In this guilt-oriented society, if Stevie really drives like this, he is expected to feel guilty whether the police stop him or not. In a shame culture, if the police miss him, he feels nothing; if he is caught, he is guilty (not "feeling guilt" -- rather, culpable) and is shamed (not "feeling guilty"); if he actually didn't drive that way, but people nevertheless believe he did, he is still shamed and dishonored. Either way, at the time of David, the guilt-orientation simply wasn't there to make David "feel guilty" as Skeptic X supposed and as Rohrbaugh soundly corrected him on."

I still am puzzled. If people in Biblical times , for example Adam and Eve, never felt guilty, but only felt shame, because they lived in a shame culture, then what were Adam and Eve feeling in Genesis 3 :10-11 'He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." And he said, "Who told you that you were naked?'

God points out that nobody was around to tell them that they were naked, so their shame must have been internal.

[Pilgrim]

And the law would have never have been effective if people had no sense of personal guilt, and Christ on the Cross would have been ineffective as well.

[johnransom]

Yesterday @ 03:08 AM
stevencarrwork:
God points out that nobody was around to tell them that they were naked, so their shame must have been internal.

Stevie, explain how could God point anything out if he wasn't "around"?

[Robyn Banks]

03-14-2003 @ 06:38 PM
Jaltus:
Jesus may not have [had a conscience], since He never did anything to feel guilty about.
HERESY!!

Jesus was "fully human" according to orthodoxy.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 03:14 AM
johnransom:



Stevie, explain how could God point anything out if he wasn't "around"?

John shows once again the startling insight expected of a graduate of the top university in England.

[Robyn Banks]

Xmansmommy:
Steven, may I ask where you heard people in biblical times didn't have a conscience?

Hamster:
Well, basically he's trying to make people 'outraged' or 'shocked' at something that J.P. Holding has claimed (and backed with scholarship) about the psychology of ancient peoples.

It is true that the focus of mid-20th century scholarship was on the "shame culture" of ancient societies. In such a conception of society, failure was imagined to only have meaning in comparison with the acheivements or expectations of others. So called "shame cultures" relied on external sanctions, and failure involved 'losing face'. By contrast, 'guilt culture' involves an inner feeling, which is seen as more important than an external sanction.

The idea that ancients had little or no individual sense of 'guilt' was made famous in Biblical Studies by Krister Stendahl's The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.

More recent anthropology has overturned this way of thinking. However, Biblical scholarship lags behind - relying on outdated research.

Malina is typical of scholars who relied on dated anthropological research in concluding that 1st-century personality was 'dyadic' - having no sense of individuality or uniqueness & no sense or concern with the psychological reasons behind his behavior. Not only did he draw from outdated research, but he over-generalized, and failed to recognize the changes which had occurred by the 1st century AD. As Lloyd-Jones points out, shame became less and less important from the 4th-century to the 1st century. Even as early as Democrites we read the ethical statement that a person should behave in the same way, even if no-one else knows about what he did. Plato and Aristotle made criticisms of 'honor', too.

A good modern biblical study, which takes into account more recent anthropology is Gary W Burnett's Paul and the Salvation of the Individual (Leiden: Bill, 2001). He points out from numerous examples taken from the ancient world that the ancients were fully aware and very concerned with the individual. By the first century AD, there was a very clear concept of the individual, and of conscience.

"There is no basis for believing that self-consciousness in culture interpretation and formation is any different in pre-modern non-industrial or in non-Western societies."

Much of the previous ignorance of the importance of the individual in agrarian and ancient societies came from a biased evolutionary view of culture. Scholars such as Malina simply took up this evolutionary view of the social sciences as gospel. It wasn't.

As Burnett's book makes clear, there is abundant evidence of the individual in Hellenistic literature and philosophy.

"The trends in modern anthropology, which recognise the importance of self-consciousness and cognittive models of culture, combined with the classical scholarship just reviewed, indicates strongly that human beings of early and classical Greece, and the inhabitants of the Greco-Roman world of the first century CE were human beings in the sense in which we understand the modern person - self aware, conscious of him or herself as a unique person, pro-active in the world, making sense of the culture, and contributing to the continual change of their era."




Holding:
http://www.tektonics.org/tillstill7-5.html

"One raised in a shame-oriented, collectivist society would "feel" no such thing at all.
'Holding' at the very least overstates his case here. In light of modern anthropological scholarship, he is shown to be quite wrong. As Williams points out - 'shame' has an internal element as well.



Holding:
... trying to smear Malina and Neyrey (and you can bet he won't write Neyrey and tell him he's wrong, either)...
As noted above, Malina relied on dated research even when he was writing. His views are quite discredited now.



Holding:
... at the time of David, the guilt-orientation simply wasn't there to make David "feel guilty" as Skeptic X supposed and as Rohrbaugh soundly corrected him on."
Modern anthopological scholarship would disagree. So too would the survey of ancient Hellenistic literature in the book I cited above by Burnett.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Faramir:
Well I know what I mean by conscience, but I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.
Common definitions are important. Most arguments come down to definitions, after all.

Greek: syneidesis

The Greek term means “to witness for or against oneself”, or “to hug a secret to oneself” – primarily a guilty secret. The syneidesis functions as pain, and is usually negative, referring to specific past acts which we look back on and judge. This Greek conception of conscience was fatalistic in conception - referring to the fixed order of things, and ultimately to God – showing humans the limits of their human nature by a lesson (in pain)!

Latin conscientia

The Latin term, “conscientia” meant a retrospective knowledge of failures, coming as an accusation within the subject. It came to be viewed as a witness given by God to an individual, in order to guide his or her actions in moral progress. It acted as a critical judge within.

English “conscience”

Derived from the Latin, the term literally means “to know together”, or “the knowledge we share with one another”. It stems from the same root word as consciousness, and as such simply means “moral awareness”.

There is a difference of opinion as to whether conscience is an identifiable faculty of a human, or part of our very consciousness. Helmut Thielicke notes that “the differences in the understanding of conscience clearly arise out of differences in the understanding of man.” A dualistic anthropological view of a human would ontologically separate out the conscience from the remainder of the human subject. Whereas, a holistic anthropology affirms the conscience is only separable in a conceptual sense.

Richard Gula defines conscience in a threefold manner, beginning with an understanding of conscience as a particular faculty. Conscience is:
“Our fundamental capacity for moral discernment, the process of discerning, and the judgment we make in light of the truth we discover.”

Similarly, Eric Mount simply claims that:
“Man does not have a conscience; he is a conscience”.

The human condition that produces religious faith and conscience is “self-consciousness”, which develops alongside language as the human subject develops.

Conscience is:
“A metaphor pointing to the specifically moral dimension of the human person”.
- Eric Mount, again

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[johnransom]

Yesterday @ 11:56 PM
stevencarrwork:



John shows once again the startling insight expected of a graduate of the top university in England.

Since you were graduated from the same university I take that as an admission of your own lack of insight. Of course, you resort to such a poorly executed personal attack because, as usual, you read the post failing to comprehend a rather obvious point. In this case, that the external party before whom they felt their shame was God himself.

[Pilgrim]

They felt their shame before God but it was not God who told them to be ashamed so there is still an internal aspect to it. I think this is rather a pedantic argument to have. Sort of like, "can God create a rock..." It's just not a very good question.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 02:53 PM
johnransom:



Since you were graduated from the same university I take that as an admission of your own lack of insight. Of course, you resort to such a poorly executed personal attack because, as usual, you read the post failing to comprehend a rather obvious point. In this case, that the external party before whom they felt their shame was God himself.

Sorry about that. I didn't realise that when God said 'Who told you that you were naked?', Adam and Eve then replied 'You did. Don't you remember?'

Genesis 2:25 'The man and his wife were both naked and they felt no shame'. Using Ransom-logic this proves God was not there, as they would have felt shame before God, for being naked.

But then they eat of the tree of good and evil, and then God himself realised that they were naked, and told them that they should be ashamed. He asks them if anybody had told them that they were naked, when He himself must have done so , because Adam and Eve had no internal conscience and only got their knowledge of good and evil by what other people said (and God was the only other being around).

Using non-Ransom logic, Adam and Eve had no internal conscience before eating of the tree of good and evil, and then had an internal conscience after eating, so felt ashamed of being naked, and God wanted to know (in a rhetorical manner designed to get them to confess) how they came to know good and evil, when He had not told them.

But non-Ransom logic is too simple.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 03:05 PM
Pilgrim:

They felt their shame before God but it was not God who told them to be ashamed so there is still an internal aspect to it. I think this is rather a pedantic argument to have. Sort of like, "can God create a rock..." It's just not a very good question.

Well, if God never told them, and they had no internal conscience , as John Ransom insists, then one of you is wrong.

[johnransom]

Today @ 09:10 AM
stevencarrwork:



Well, if God never told them, and they had no internal conscience , as John Ransom insists, then one of you is wrong.

More illogic and poor reading comprehension. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. The "internal aspect" that Pilgrim refers to is merely the realization that they're going to get caught - they saw that they were naked. So they try to cover themselves up and hide from God. Clear textual evidence of the externality of their shame.

And, while we're at it, let's add the angels to the group before whom they are shamed, since they appear to be active participants in the garden.

[jpholding]

Too bad, Robyn -- or is is Helen Gradwell? -- you'll have to leave now.

More recent anthropology has overturned this way of thinking. However, Biblical scholarship lags behind - relying on outdated research.

Recent anthropology hasn't overturned dip. Your sources are overgeneralizing and overstating what Malina et al argued, not refuting what they argued. It's called a "straw man". Try not to copy uncritically from Burnett, and do some thinking of your own for a change.

'Holding' at the very least overstates his case here. In light of modern anthropological scholarship, he is shown to be quite wrong. As Williams points out - 'shame' has an internal element as well.

Uh, Robyn/Helen? No one said "shame" did not have internal elements. You have no idea what you are talking about, having just picked up one book on the subject (Burnett) and thinking it's the last and only word. Typical of your methods, such as they are. BTW I see you're posting as "Brett Palmer" on Errancy these days. Before it was "Brendan Jackson". Heck you may be half the members there.

[jpholding]

As for you, Stevie:

Since trying to sow dissension seems to be one of your hobbies, maybe you need something to occupy your spare time. In a few moments I will start a thread titled, "FTill's Bogus Journeys" asking some of the same sorts of questions of your group. Be sure and show up. :rofl: Like you usually do.

[Pilgrim]

Let's avoid using real names unless you have permission to, ok?

[Robyn Banks]

jpholding:
Too bad, Robyn -- or is is Helen Gradwell? -- you'll have to leave now.
Hmmmm. Are you making an issue about use of pseudonyms, "JP Holding"? Now, that's a little rich coming from you. What is that about the pot calling the kettle black? :rofl:

In any case, if you can't rebut my point about the findings of more recent anthropology, then you might as well just fill your posts with ad hominem... oh, wait... that's all you ever do, anyway! :rofl:




Robyn:
More recent anthropology has overturned this way of thinking. However, Biblical scholarship lags behind - relying on outdated research.

jpholding:
Recent anthropology hasn't overturned dip.
Incorrect. It has quite overturned the assumptions relied on by Malina, et al. These are the old scholars you thought you could rely on to support your contention that 1st-century Hellenists felt NO GUILT. You were incorrect, just as the assumptions relied on were incorrect.


jpholding:
Your sources are overgeneralizing and overstating what Malina et al argued, not refuting what they argued. It's called a "straw man".
Malina relied on anthropological resources which were then outdated, and are now considered incorrect. Whether you still agree with him or not, the fact remains that Malina was methodologically wrong.


Robyn:
'Holding' at the very least overstates his case here. In light of modern anthropological scholarship, he is shown to be quite wrong. As Williams points out - 'shame' has an internal element as well.

jpholding:
Uh, Robyn/Helen? No one said "shame" did not have internal elements.
The "internal elements" referred to means "guilt", 'JP Holding' - something you previously denied completely,

One raised in a shame-oriented, collectivist society would "feel" no such thing at all... at the time of David, the guilt-orientation simply wasn't there to make David "feel guilty""
I see that you have been corrected on this point by a biblical scholar, so it seems that you must now realise that you were wrong. There is in fact guilt in a shame culture, it is just that it is not the predominant moral force.

Moreover, as more recent anthrolpology demonstrates, guilt became more and more predominant in the centuries preceding the first century AD.


jpholding:
You have no idea what you are talking about, having just picked up one book on the subject (Burnett) and thinking it's the last and only word.
Fallacy of ad hominem.


jpholding:
Typical of your methods, such as they are.
Fallacy of ad hominem.



jpholding:
BTW I see you're posting as "Brett Palmer" on Errancy these days. Before it was "Brendan Jackson". Heck you may be half the members there.
No - I have never used the pseudonym "Brett Palmer" on Errancy. Don't worry - source criticism is an acquired skill, 'Holding' - you just need some more practice. Helen Gradwell and Brendan Jackson are me, though - as recorded on the Errancy List archives. Unfortunately, due to the fact that the list-owner of Errancy cannot stand dissenting opinions to his own, he simply delists those who dissent to his opinions. As I tended to disagree with him strongly, being the popular demagogue he was, I eventually was delisted. Hence the various pseudonyms.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[jpholding]

Hmmmm. Are you making an issue about use of pseudonyms, "JP Holding"?

No. An issue of someone who uses multiple names to get around restrictions placed on their activities. :brow:

In any case, if you can't rebut my point about the findings of more recent anthropology,

What "findings"? You lifted uncritically from one source -- a non-anthropologist -- who overstates Malina's case and refuted not a word that he actually said. You haven't shown anything about guilt and have gone nowhere near what Malina, et al have actaully written -- because again, you play your usual game of picking one source, and then posturing when called on it.

Malina relied on anthropological resources which were then outdated

Please, "Robyn" (or whoever this week). Even modern Japanese and Chinese culture is still like this.

One raised in a shame-oriented, collectivist society would "feel" no such thing at all... at the time of David, the guilt-orientation simply wasn't there to make David "feel guilty""

Hum. And David wasm when? How far before the dates you cited? And in what culture? Try again.

I see that you have been corrected on this point by a biblical scholar

You think *I* was corrected? What medication do you take for those delusions? Rohrbaugh agreed with me 99%. I wrote with the same popular language he used in his book.



You wouldn't know "recent anthropology" if it bit you. You're little more than a [i]spermologos posturing for effect. "More predominant" meaning what? It overtook shame completely? In all classes of person? Try again. And cite a source familiar with the broad range of lit this time -- like, um, an actual anthropologist or one like Malina who has actually done work in the field.





Fallacy of ad hominem.


Fallacy of ad hominem.



No - I have never used the pseudonym "Brett Palmer" on Errancy. Don't worry - source criticism is an acquired skill, 'Holding' - you just need some more practice. Helen Gradwell and Brendan Jackson are me, though - as recorded on the Errancy List archives. Unfortunately, due to the fact that the list-owner of Errancy cannot stand dissenting opinions to his own, he simply delists those who dissent to his opinions. As I tended to disagree with him strongly, being the popular demagogue he was, I eventually was delisted. Hence the various pseudonyms.

Hope that helps.

Robyn
[/color] [/QUOTE]

[Robyn Banks]

jpholding:
You think *I* was corrected? What medication do you take for those delusions? Rohrbaugh agreed with me 99%. I wrote with the same popular language he used in his book.
:rofl: :rofl:

Excellent: "I'm never wrong - I was 99% right!" :rofl:

By the way - I love your tonic water! But tell me - how did you get Britney Spears along?
- see http://www.tektonics.com

[jpholding]

In rides Red Robyn, now singing soprano after that kick to --

Excellent: "I'm never wrong - I was 99% right!"

I certainly was. Too bad laughy faces is the only answer you have. :rofl: :doh: :duh: That's the extent of your anthropological scholarship.

By the way - I love your tonic water! But tell me - how did you get Britney Spears along?

I told her that we'd give her protection from you. She says she's tired of your stalking habits. :hrm: :rofl: Best find you some more articles by bishops who frequent girlie bars.

New tek.com: Not bad. My warning at http://www.tektonics.org/proj.html is working nicely BTW. Over 600 views last month.

[Robyn Banks]

jpholding:
That's the extent of your anthropological scholarship.
What? More up to date than yours!?
:yipee: :rofl: :yipee:




jpholding:
New tek.com: Not bad.
Thank you!




jpholding:
My warning at http://www.tektonics.org/proj.html is working nicely BTW. Over 600 views last month.
I know! My hits have increased dramatically as a result!! Thanks for the free advertisement!!
http://www.tektonics.com

Robyn

[jpholding]

What? More up to date than yours!?

Still waiting for the proof behind that pudding. In the meantime, how about an answer to the point that Japanese, Chinese, and other cultures REMAIN the same way? :duh: :duh: :hrm: :eek:

Nope, all you got is the latest fads in reading. FTill is more competent than even that, because he doesn't even make a pretense.


I know! My hits have increased dramatically as a result!! Thanks for the free advertisement!!

Yep, that's like Bill Clinton saying that average annual income in Arkansas went up 200% under his care. Only he forgets to tell ya that people in Arkansas were only making $1 a year before he came into office. :rofl: Shoot, Robyn, I get 50K visitors a month. The Morbid Curiosity Factor is of course going to come into play. :cool: :xmm: :cir:

[jpholding]

Now an answer to the question, "Did Jesus have a conscience?" Stevie asked this hoping to sow dissension and to make the phrase, "Horrors! He says Jesus had no conscience!" come out, but it's not that simple.

Under this rubric conscience is a primarily EXTERNAL force. It is what others make you think and do, not what you do yourself. In a shame culture, what other people believe is more powerful than what you think.

If we believe that Jesus was the Word incarnate, the question "did he have a conscience" is moot to begin with. His external "ingroup" would have been the members of the Godhead, of which he was part. God by nature is presumed to be holy, so where arises the need for any sort of external conscience of any kind? In ancient times, no external element could have accused him. In modern times, he would have no reason to feel guilty. End of story.

Robyn, please cite your next out of context, non-relevant scholar so we can get this over with. :rofl:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Robyn, I can enjoy good humor even when it is against me or my friends, in fact, a good roast of me I find quite enjoyable, but your new site page is just not even funny... ironically, it is quite bland.

But, putting on Adminstrator's hat, on another note, please refrain from posting links that really are not germane to the conversation in an effort merely to advertise your site. You are free to include a permanent link to your site with a brief description in your signature line. Thank you.

[Robyn Banks]

jpholding:
all you got is the latest fads in reading
Thanks! I try to keep up-to-date. And that's where the biblical scholars you cited failed - they relied on outdated anthropology, which drove a false wedge between 'guilt' and 'shame' cultures.

Of course, the primary resource is the Bible and other contemporary resources. Here's a summary I compiled for you:

Biblical uses – Old Testament

The term “conscience” was adopted by the writers of the Old Testament Apocrypha, but is not used by the writers of the Old Testament books. The term “heart” (“leb”) carries much of the meaning of “conscience”. Leb and its synonym lebab appear 860 times in the Old Testament. The heart is the centre of vital decisions, feeling and reason, decision and action, intention and consciousness. The Hebraic conception of the heart was quite similar to the Babylonian idea of the heart.

Lebab can be used of the inner man, contrasted with the inner man:
- “No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe.” (Deut 30:14)
- “Yet even now, says the LORD, return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; rend your hearts and not your clothing.” (Joel 2:12-13a)
- “for the LORD does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7)

The compounding of the term “heart” with “soul” emphasises the inner/outer distinction:
- “They entered into a covenant to seek the LORD, the God of their ancestors, with all their heart and with all their soul.” (2 Chronicles 15:12)

The will is indicated by “heart”:
- “Pharaoh's heart is hardened; he refuses to let the people go.” (Exodus 7:14)
- “Take from among you an offering to the LORD; let whoever is of a generous heart bring the Lord's offering: gold, silver, and bronze…” (Exodus 35:5)

The “heart” is the seat of the passions and emotions:
- “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart.” (Deut 6:5-6)
- There are merry hearts (Judg 16:25), fearful hearts (Isa 35:4) and hearts that trembled (1 Sam 4:13)

The heart is also the seat of rational knowledge:
- “Know then in your heart that…” (Deut 8:5)
- Solomon prayed: “So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?” (1 Kings 3:9)

The heart functions as the inner moral judge of evil or good - ie. as a 'conscience':
- Job declares his innocence thus: “I hold fast my righteousness, and will not let it go; my heart does not reproach me for any of my days.” (Job 27:6)
- On the other hand: “David was stricken to the heart because he had numbered the people. David said to the LORD, "I have sinned greatly in what I have done. But now, O LORD, I pray you, take away the guilt of your servant; for I have done very foolishly."” (2 Samuel 24:10)

The heart is the origin or fountain of a person’s deeds:
- Abimelech says in his defence: “I did this in the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands.” (Genesis 20:5)

The idea of a “clean heart” corresponds to that of a good conscience.
- Thus, the Psalmist pleas: “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me.” (Psalm 51:10).
- “And who shall stand in his holy place? Those who have clean hands and pure hearts” (Psalm 24:4)
- The hope of the Messianic prophecies was of a new heart (Jeremiah 31:31-34 ; Ezekiel 11:14-21 ).

For Jesus, too, the unity of a person was centred in the heart – both evil (“For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come” - Mark 7:21) and good (“The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good” - Luke 6:45).

Biblical uses – New Testament

The Hebrew conception of the “heart” as the centre of man’s mental, emotional and moral activity is continued in the New Testament usage of “heart”. However, in the New Testament, Paul also introduces the concept of “conscience” (“suneidhsiv”, syneidesis), weaving Hebrew and Greek thought, while appropriating commonly understood Greek and Stoic meanings. The term occurs 32 times in the New Testament; including 26 instances in the Pauline and deutero-Pauline letters.

The term syneidesis can indicate guilt before God, or innocence before God:
- “…would [the sacrifices] not have ceased being offered, since the worshipers, cleansed once for all, would no longer have any consciousness of sin?” (Hebrews 10:2)
- “While Paul was looking intently at the council he said, "Brothers, up to this day I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God."” (Acts 23:1)
- “…the aim of such instruction is love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith.” (1 Timothy 1:5)

Only those with a pure heart and conscience may enter into God’s presence:
- “gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper” (Hebrews 9:9)
- “how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God!” (Hebrews 9:14)
- “let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience” (Hebrews 10:22)

The conscience may be corrupted:
- “To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure. Their very minds and consciences are corrupted.” (Titus 1:15)

Syneidesis describes the process of thought which discerns moral good and evil – commending the good and condemning the evil. It is a rational and universal natural ability:
- “When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.” (Romans 2:14-16)
- “I am speaking the truth in Christ - I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 9:1)
- “this is our boast, the testimony of our conscience: we have behaved in the world with frankness and godly sincerity…” (2 Corinthians 1:12)

Syneidesis constrains a person:
- “one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.” (Romans 13:5)

We are charged to consider the consciences of those less free than ourselves:
- “But if someone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience - I mean the other's conscience, not your own. For why should my liberty be subject to the judgment of someone else's conscience?” (1 Corinthians 10:28-29)
- “when you thus sin against members of your family, and wound their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.” (1 Corinthians 8:12)

Conscience may be over-scrupulous, or weak, and therefore should be ignored in oneself at times:
- “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience, for "the earth and its fullness are the Lord's." If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.” (1 Corinthians 10:25-27)
- “some have become so accustomed to idols until now, they still think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.” (1 Corinthians 8:7)

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[johnransom]

Don't you feel cramped living in that tiny little mind of yours, Stevie?


Yesterday @ 09:08 AM
stevencarrwork:
Sorry about that. I didn't realise that when God said 'Who told you that you were naked?', Adam and Eve then replied 'You did. Don't you remember?'
Go back to reading "See Spot Run". What does the question have to do with whether God was available as an external conscience or not? The simple fact of the matter is that they realized they were going to get caught.


Genesis 2:25 'The man and his wife were both naked and they felt no shame'. Using Ransom-logic this proves God was not there, as they would have felt shame before God, for being naked.
Another blatant non sequitur. No one said their nakedness was a source of shame. Including Moses.


But then they eat of the tree of good and evil, and then God himself realised that they were naked, and told them that they should be ashamed. He asks them if anybody had told them that they were naked, when He himself must have done so , because Adam and Eve had no internal conscience and only got their knowledge of good and evil by what other people said (and God was the only other being around).
*sigh*


Using non-Ransom logic, Adam and Eve had no internal conscience before eating of the tree of good and evil, and then had an internal conscience after eating, so felt ashamed of being naked, and God wanted to know (in a rhetorical manner designed to get them to confess) how they came to know good and evil, when He had not told them.

But non-Ransom logic is too simple.
Simple in the sense of idiotic.

[jpholding]

In flies Red Robyn, nekkid as a jaybird again,

they relied on outdated anthropology, which drove a false wedge between 'guilt' and 'shame' cultures.

The "wedge" is in the imagination of those who overstated their case for them.

Of course, the primary resource is the Bible and other contemporary resources.

Oh indeed. A repeat of FTill's serious mistake. How droll. Keep in mind that it is NEVER said, "they had no conscience" -- what is said is that conscience is sourced in EXTERNAL factors. Now let's see what you have here --

The term “conscience” was adopted by the writers of the Old Testament Apocrypha, but is not used by the writers of the Old Testament books.

Nice. Not a word of it addresses the issue at hand. Nor does any cite you give show that lebab is functionally equivalent with what we call "conscience" in the internal sense. Whoopee. :argh:

- “No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe.” (Deut 30:14)

The heart "observes". And what? This is not conscience as we define it.

- “Yet even now, says the LORD, return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; rend your hearts and not your clothing.” (Joel 2:12-13a)

The heart has intent. Still not "conscience" as we define it.

- “for the LORD does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7)

And that "heart" is what? It's something God looks on. How does that define out as "conscience" in our modern sense? Did you even check these cites for applicability before you copied and pasted them?

The compounding of the term “heart” with “soul” emphasises the inner/outer distinction:

Yes, the heart is "inner". How does this prove that it is what we call "conscience" in a modern sense?

The will is indicated by “heart”:

Too bad the "will" is not "conscience". Hello?

The “heart” is the seat of the passions and emotions:

The "conscience" isn't. Good grief!

The heart is also the seat of rational knowledge:

And the conscience....isn't.

The heart functions as the inner moral judge of evil or good - ie. as a 'conscience':

Oh, NOW we finally get close, but too bad:

- Job declares his innocence thus: “I hold fast my righteousness, and will not let it go; my heart does not reproach me for any of my days.” (Job 27:6)

Um, if the heart did stuff like do rational knowledge, then how is this not, i.e., Job's rational sense not reproaching him? Hello? BTW you know the "me" is a KJV addition, do you not? We're still not to something that proves out to be uniquely identifiable with modern "conscience" of an internal sort.

- On the other hand: “David was stricken to the heart because he had numbered the people. David said to the LORD, "I have sinned greatly in what I have done. But now, O LORD, I pray you, take away the guilt of your servant; for I have done very foolishly."” (2 Samuel 24:10)

Heart =emotions. Hello? Still not anything that we can call a "guilty conscience". Like FTill you let your provinicalism rule the text rather than the context.

The heart is the origin or fountain of a person’s deeds:

Which is still not "conscience" as we define it.

The idea of a “clean heart” corresponds to that of a good conscience.

Clean thoughts, clean passions. Conscience? An import into the text based on sociological ignorance. Try starting with experts first.

Paul also introduces the concept of “conscience” (“suneidhsiv”, syneidesis), weaving Hebrew and Greek thought, while appropriating commonly understood Greek and Stoic meanings.

Yep, and it is an EXTERNAL force. Hello?

- “…would [the sacrifices] not have ceased being offered, since the worshipers, cleansed once for all, would no longer have any consciousness of sin?” (Hebrews 10:2)

I.e., no one is accusing them. Let the background rule the text, not your own presuppositions.

- “While Paul was looking intently at the council he said, "Brothers, up to this day I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God."” (Acts 23:1)

Ah. BEFORE GOD. External. :joy: Who is the source of this?

- “…the aim of such instruction is love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith.” (1 Timothy 1:5)

And what is the SOURCE of this? Internal? No. External.

- “gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper” (Hebrews 9:9)
- “how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God!” (Hebrews 9:14)

Boom bada bing. The gifts, sacrifices, Spirit -- all external influences.

Hope that helps.

It helps waste my time. None of the cites you offered addressed the issue at hand: Whether this conscience ultimately found its source internally or externally.

I'll close by adding in the appendix to my article written by a reader who has come from just such a culture. Try refuting the voice of experience:

It is amazing how myopic so-called Skeptics can be when it comes to anything outside of their mental bubbles. [Little Stevie] Carr has somehow found the idea that the majority of the modern world thinks like the people in the Bible, namely as collectivists, quite distasteful. A majority of the world is Chinese. So am I. We emphasize the extended family as a unit, we carry a monstrously vast line of traditions, and we even place surnames in front of personal names to show priorities in terms of identity. Certainly, not all of us follow the ways of our ancestors strictly, but this is due to the influence of, you guessed it, the Western world. But having been raised as in the first generation in this nation, I can say for certain that there are immense cultural differences. In particular, honor and shame rather than innocence and guilt are the issue: we do not think in terms of Jiminy Crickets in our heads, but rather base values on the group as a whole.

At gatherings, for instance, a father may yell at his child for being "diu liên"--throwing one's face away, a lovely image for what it means to be, for lack of a better word, shameful. But even in instances of moral guilt, what happens? The same phrase is applied, whether the child was caught cheating on homework, stealing a bicycle, or throwing food across the room in a restaurant. In some cases, yes, manners are the issue, but for some reason, it is not the fact that the action was in itself wrong that one is condemned for--it is the fact that it brought shame, particularly to the family name. For this reason, perhaps, Asians in general have been advocates of stricter discipline, particularly corporal. Modern psychologists may claim that punishment does no good, but for the honor-driven parents, it certainly brings about the desired behavior modification.

Of course, there are more trivial examples. There is rarely a gathering in which people will not "fight" over the right to pay the bill. Of course, each will attempt to claim it first, (not because it is morally right, or because they really want to, but because it is honorable,) and they will attempt to excuse the others by elaborating on how embarrassing it would be to accept it. Then there is the stereotype of the high grades, the good schools, the countless extracurriculars, at least piano or violin, and so forth. For what purpose? To represent the family name. You will never hear the older generation say, "It's for your own good," whether in regard to an order, or a punishment, or anything, because it simply isn't about us as individuals. And you will most certainly never hear, "Don't you feel bad?" The Chinese are notorious for their stoic attitudes. It is sometimes joked that we as a race don't even have emotions.

There is another silly game often played. One might say something intentionally belittling so as to win reinforcing praise from the other party, whether with regard to how a child never studies or how poorly the food is cooked. This, of course, is a cheap way to win, you guessed it, honor. As a result, the principle of limited good shows up all the time. People do not dispense presents or hospitality out of goodwill, but necessity, because it would be shameful to accept it without returning the favor.

Of course, a known tendency in such a society can be to become completely dishonest. So long as one is not caught, any means are fine. There is fierce competition and pressure, which is why it never surprised me that many of my fellow American- born Chinese peers ended up, in fact, doing this. They had become so obsessed with the outward favor that they took a Machiavellian approach to it all. It never once bothered them that they might be doing the wrong thing. It never once occurred to them to live for themselves. It never occurred to them that there was an internal concept of right and wrong. These are ideas foreign to us.

I was once reprimanded for inappropriate behavior during recess back in elementary school. When the teacher tried to explain how I might hurt the other children, how I should feel bad, and how I should say sorry, much of it did not make any sense, because I knew my parents would scold me for making them look bad. One view was individualistic, emotional, and personal. The other was collectivist, pragmatic, and social. I can understand how the modern understanding of the Christian message came to be this fuzzy idea of accepting Jesus into one's heart, to believe and have a wonderful, soul-lifting experience and freedom from guilt, replete with flowers and singing. On the other hand, I have never been able to identify with this, although I can most certainly say that the collectivist, honor-shame mindset was crucial to making the Chinese church I grew up in look a lot more like the one seen in Acts rather than the dead, formal service churches are popularly made out to be.

[MuggleOrSquib]

JPHolding,
Your quote of the Chinese immigrant fits with the claim of a Russian Orthodox friend that the individualism of Western European Christianity is foreign to the Orthodox. This would suggest that, in light of the neurological aspects of conscience, the social focus in honor-shame cultures maps roughly to the function of conscience. An analogy would be musicality, which is culturally conditioned in its specifics but involves the same areas of the brain, whatever traits characterize the music of the culture in question.
Thus, the member of an honor-shame society formulates moral/ethical questions in terms of honor and shame. The member of an individualistic society formulates such questions quite differently.
Do I understand?
Bob Griffin

[jpholding]

Today @ 09:54 PM
MuggleOrSquib:

JPHolding,
Thus, the member of an honor-shame society formulates moral/ethical questions in terms of honor and shame. The member of an individualistic society formulates such questions quite differently.
Do I understand?


Yes, you most certainly do. You did better in one post than Robyn did in how many??? :duh:

[Robyn Banks]

MuggleorSquib:
Thus, the member of an honor-shame society formulates moral/ethical questions in terms of honor and shame. The member of an individualistic society formulates such questions quite differently.
Do I understand?

jpholding:
Yes, you most certainly do. You did better in one post than Robyn did in how many???
'Holding' - if it was merely a question of understanding your position, then that was accomplished from the outset. Again you concentrate your words on attacking the person, rather than the issue at hand. This is the mark of an amateur web-hack.

What I have pointed out is that modern anthropologists have drawn back from the Skinner-behavioralism of the 1950s, and are now reasserting that the ancients had the same level of self-consciousness and sense of individuality as the modern individual. Modern societies may have more of an emphasis on the individual. And it would certainly be an error to go to the opposite extreme and ignore the differences of these more communally-centred cultures. But as has been shown by anthropologists such as Goffman, Cohen and Goodenough, the ancients had as full a sense of self-consciousness and of conscience as we do.

It is simply an error to assume the old 'evolutionary model' - with its false presumptions about individualism. The ancients felt guilt in the same way we do, even if their culture elevated 'shame' to the primary motivator.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[MuggleOrSquib]

JPHolding,
Honored Human, I observe the apparent hostility (joking?) between you and Robyn, but I do not understand how it relates to me.
If the two of you are attacking each other in friendly fashion, your mention of Robyn makes sense (as a move in a game). If not, then I would rather not be included in an attempt to
irritate your opponent if he or she is of choleric temper.

On a more academic level--would you say that the individualism of Western culture is derived from the Reformation, or rather from the Renaissance?
[hmmm, I think I should hit google with honor shame as a search topic]
Bob Griffin

[MuggleOrSquib]

Robyn,
Given that Dominic Crossan claims that 2nd Temple Jewish culture was a guilt-shame culture, comparing it with modern rural Mediterranean culture, are you saying that Crossan is using outdated anthropological studies?
Bob Griffin

[stevencarrwork]

Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
jp (a majority of the world is Chinese) holding:

Of course, a known tendency in such a society can be to become completely dishonest. So long as one is not caught, any means are fine. There is fierce competition and pressure, which is why it never surprised me that many of my fellow American- born Chinese peers ended up, in fact, doing this. They had become so obsessed with the outward favor that they took a Machiavellian approach to it all. It never once bothered them that they might be doing the wrong thing. It never once occurred to them to live for themselves. It never occurred to them that there was an internal concept of right and wrong. These are ideas foreign to us.

[/i]

Now we all know what Holding thinks of the honesty of Chinese people born in America.

Curiously, although these American-born Chinese were born in a Western society, with notions of guilt and conscience, Holding does not think these American-born Chinese have any conscience and considers many of them to be completely dishonest.

[Robyn Banks]

MuggleOrSquib:
Robyn,
Given that Dominic Crossan claims that 2nd Temple Jewish culture was a guilt-shame culture, comparing it with modern rural Mediterranean culture, are you saying that Crossan is using outdated anthropological studies?
Bob Griffin
Yes (from what I've read and heard of him). Not only Crossan, but most biblical scholars, are relying on outdated anthropological research. The entire New Perspective on Paul suffers from the same mis-emphasis. Burnett is an exception in that he is picking up on the anthropology of the last 15 years or so, whcih is largely driven from the advances made by neuroscience and cognitive models of culture. The older model resulted from a prejudice towards 'evolutionary' understandings of individuals in more 'primitive' cultures.

I must email my friend who is writing a doctoral thesis on the role of the individual versus community in OT Hebrew culture. Unless he's changed his topic again, I'm sure he'd be well read on this. I'm only marginally interested in it.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

stevencarrwork:
Now we all know what Holding thinks of the honesty of Chinese people born in America.

Curiously, although these American-born Chinese were born in a Western society, with notions of guilt and conscience, Holding does not think these American-born Chinese have any conscience and considers many of them to be completely dishonest.
It is a typical attitude. Most of these old 'evolutionary' anthropological models were nothing but thinly-disguised prejudice against non-Europeans. And still people like 'Holding' continue to exhibit their prejudices though the thin veneer of bygone pseudoscientific theories.

Fortunately, modern anthropology does not hold to such quaint cultural-evolutionary theories.

Unlike Holding, I have had a number of Chinese-born friends, who have from time to time expressed their personal guilt in doing certain things, even when there is nobody around to monitor them! Ah - but 'who can trust them with their inscrutable expressions' - eh, 'Holding'. :rofl: 'They don't think like us, do they?' :rofl:

Margaret Mead and Samoa all over again.

Robyn

[johnransom]

Today @ 01:14 AM
stevencarrwork:
Now we all know what Holding thinks of the honesty of Chinese people born in America.

Today @ 02:21 AM
Robyn Banks:
Unlike Holding, I have had a number of Chinese-born friends

Reading comprehension falls to new lows. Stevie's citation states "many of my fellow American-born Chinese peers", so apparently he and Robyn think that JP is Chinese but knows nothing about Chinese-American culture and knows no other Chinese-Americans.

[jpholding]

Dear, er, Trent Emtage,


'Holding' - if it was merely a question of understanding your position, then that was accomplished from the outset.

Dear me, no, it's a case of you trying to slither your way out of a rather foolish exclusivist statement. "Outdated"? "False"? Yet not a single anthro-authority to back up your claim. Do tell.

I am in the middle of a research trip and the findings are:

Malina et al. are NOT using "outdated, false" research -- if by this you mean, it has been proven wrong and abandoned.

If by "outdated" you mean the basic theory has been refined, elucidated, and added to over time -- that is correct, and no one would deny it, least of all Malina, and that's no different than in any other field.

It runs down to this, Trent/Helen/whoever -- you have taken a single comment from a non-expert in the field (Burnett), filled it with helium, and tied the string around your neck. The one critique of Malina, et al that MAY have some validity is that they focus on the social aspects to the exclusion of other aspects -- a rather peculiar criticism, since they write books on the subject in question. As a whole, however, nothing in their basic focus has been disproved or abandoned. Remember:

The idea is not that an honor-shame/collectivist society has NO expressions of individuality, but that such expressions are subjugated as a whole to the preference of the collective.

Again you concentrate your words on attacking the person, rather than the issue at hand.

When the person in question is a rank incompetent, it's quite a valid practice. The clear fact is, Robyn/Helen/Trent/Joe/whoever, you are little more than a nuisance who gets kick out of trying to antagonize others and making yourself stand out. You know nothing more than what you pick up in the spare books you read. You have yet to cite a "modern anthropologist" of any sort. In contrast I have gone through several items here at the local college library, and even those most up to date are discussing differing senses of self in collective cultures. Who the heck are you? You are a backpedaller:

Modern societies may have more of an emphasis on the individual. And it would certainly be an error to go to the opposite extreme and ignore the differences of these more communally-centred cultures.

Oh yes -- the very extreme you accuse Malina, et al of, which they do NOT commit. In short you are now realizing you've been kicked in the bologna and are slowly dropping this "false, outdated" line in favor of a more nuanced position to keep yourself from looking foolish.

But as has been shown by anthropologists such as Goffman, Cohen and Goodenough, the ancients had as full a sense of self-consciousness and of conscience as we do.

Which "Goffman"? Erving? Which "Cohen"? Titles? Please. You most likely picked these names at random out of a bibliography on anthropology; if by chance you did read them, you are still fudging by overstating the case (no one says they lacked "self-conciousness" and they DID have conscience, sourced differently).

Stop wasting our time pretending to be informed.

[jpholding]

Dear Squib,

Honored Human, I observe the apparent hostility (joking?) between you and Robyn, but I do not understand how it relates to me.

My reference was for the sake of others here reading. I did not intend to imply involvement for you. You'll see soon enough more about "Robyn" (or whoever he/she/it is this week).

On a more academic level--would you say that the individualism of Western culture is derived from the Reformation, or rather from the Renaissance?

It undoubtedly had roots in the Greeks where the first signs of strong individualism came forth. I'm not expert enough in the period you refer to to say more.

[jpholding]

Gee Stevie Weevie,

Now we all know what Holding thinks of the honesty of Chinese people born in America.

Apparently you still haven't got the clue -- plain as day -- that the section you refer to was written FOR me BY someone else -- namely, a Chinese immigrant.

Are you this dense on weekdays only, or all the time?

[jpholding]

:duh: Dear Naked Jaybird,

And still people like 'Holding' continue to exhibit their prejudices though the thin veneer of bygone pseudoscientific theories.

Hello? Hello? Read the article: http://www.tektonics.org/tillstill7-5.html -- And now, we'd like to close this barn door on Skeptic X's and Stevies fingers with some real-world comments from someone who has one foot in our world, and the other foot in a world like the Bible's. Our writer comes from a native Chinese family, and now lives in the United States. China is still a collectivist, honor-shame culture as a whole, and our writer is specially qualified to give us some insight. The floor to our writer:

Unlike Holding, I have had a number of Chinese-born friends,

The writer IS my Chinese-born friend. Not me, Trent/whoever.

who have from time to time expressed their personal guilt in doing certain things, even when there is nobody around to monitor them!

:duh:, how long have they been in YOUR culture, Cornball? Enough time to be acclimated and pick up our way of thinking? Hello?

Ah - but 'who can trust them with their inscrutable expressions' - eh, 'Holding'. :rofl: 'They don't think like us, do they?'

You'd be a bigot to think that they do, Robyn Hoodwink. :rofl: Funny how you attribute implicitly racism towards a party who is a member of the party being discussed. Too bad. You just hung yourself trusting Stevie Weevie to know what he was talking about.

[stevencarrwork]

Although Holding had an article by one of his friends saying that many American-born Chinese (ie Chinese people not born in China, but born in America) are completely dishonest, Holding denies he believes that many American-born Chinese are completely dishonest)

Doesn't Holding agree with what he gets his friends to write?

[johnransom]

Today @ 10:49 AM
stevencarrwork:

Although Holding had an article by one of his friends saying that many American-born Chinese (ie Chinese people not born in China, but born in America) are completely dishonest, Holding denies he believes that many American-born Chinese are completely dishonest)

Doesn't Holding agree with what he gets his friends to write?

Oh yeah? Show us the denial, o Literarily-Challenged One.

[jpholding]

Har har, :rofl:

Although Holding had an article by one of his friends saying

Oops. Where's your, "Sorry, I was wrong," Stevie? Did you lose it?

that many American-born Chinese (ie Chinese people not born in China, but born in America) are completely dishonest

Um, shall we see that quote?

Of course, a known tendency in such a society can be to become completely dishonest. So long as one is not caught, any means are fine. There is fierce competition and pressure, which is why it never surprised me that many of my fellow American- born Chinese peers ended up, in fact, doing this. They had become so obsessed with the outward favor that they took a Machiavellian approach to it all...

So it is not as Stevie says, quite. It is that it is a "known tendency" and my writer backs it up with his personal experience.

Holding denies he believes that many American-born Chinese are completely dishonest)

Gee. By your own accounting my friend here is being "completely dishonest" in his report, so what then? Are you a racist? :rofl:

Doesn't Holding agree with what he gets his friends to write?

Yep. Now you need to learn to read what is written. :lol:

[stevencarrwork]

Does Augsburger count as a modern anthropologist?

http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1988/v45-1-bookreview16.htm

'Thus, in his chapter on a theology of grace, Augsburger focuses on the issue of controls and, more specifically, the three control patterns of anxiety, shame, and guilt. These three control patterns are selected for special attention because, in his view, they are "the natural, normal, and universal sequence of controls in every personality in every culture." There are no "anxiety cultures," "shame cultures," or "guilt cultures" per se, since all three controls are found in every culture and, as far as individual development is concerned, anxiety, shame, and guilt emerge sequentially. This pattern is universal.'

Augsburger appears to think modern Chinese and Japanese people can feel guilt.

[Rusty T]

Just wondering what all the fuss is about. If Biblical culture was a Shame-based and not Guilt-based society, what does it matter? How does it hurt/help anyone's position. Perhaps there is a history to all of this that I'm not understanding.

There is one thing I'm wondering about, perhaps Holding can answer for me.

If I lived in a shame/honor based society, how am I to come to the understanding that I am personally guilty of breaking God's commandments? I know that God is the "external" source of my shame, but aren't shame and guilt related, but different concepts?

Again, I've not considered all of these points b/f so I am a rank amateur in this area, so forgive my ignorance.

rusty

[johnransom]

Today @ 11:52 AM
tizzidale:

Just wondering what all the fuss is about. If Biblical culture was a Shame-based and not Guilt-based society, what does it matter? How does it hurt/help anyone's position. Perhaps there is a history to all of this that I'm not understanding.

There is one thing I'm wondering about, perhaps Holding can answer for me.

If I lived in a shame/honor based society, how am I to come to the understanding that I am personally guilty of breaking God's commandments? I know that God is the "external" source of my shame, but aren't shame and guilt related, but different concepts?

Again, I've not considered all of these points b/f so I am a rank amateur in this area, so forgive my ignorance.

rusty

You're equivocating on the word "guilt". Guilt as it applies to a guilt-based society refers to the feeling a Westerner experiences when prompted by his conscience that an action was wrong. Guilt as it relates to breaking the Commandments refers to culpability, as in the legal sense. Obviously, guilt in the latter sense exists equally in all societies. The difference is in how that guilt is recognized: in an honor/shame society, the guilt is noted by society and then admitted by the individual (in order to restore honor); in a guilt society the individual is supposed to admit his own guilt (in order to restore one's self-worth) regardless of whether society knows it or not.

When one considers this, it becomes clear that this is a natural difference between collective societies (such as 1st century Palestine and in fact most groups throughout history) and individualistic societies (such as modern Western ones). A good "primer" on this issue is Bruce Malina's Windows on the World of Jesus. Malina is a social sciences scholar and one of the leading members of the Context Group, which actively promotes the application of this concept to Scripture. WTTWJ imagines that modern Americans can time travel to 1st century Palestine and presents a number of sketches illustrating the confusions (on both sides) that result from the interaction of two radically different societies. Most of it has to do with how people relate to each other. He also shows how this has a significant effect on how certain Bible passages are to be interpreted. For example, the wicked servant who hid his talent rather than investing it did exactly what he was supposed to do, that is, not to take personal risks. The others took risks no one would have expected them to take. Consequently, this is a much stronger message about how the kingdom of God is to be spread than it otherwise appears to our culturally-shaped vision.

There are also implications for deeper issues, such as justification and eschatology, which in this volume Malina rather glosses over, but it is a good starting point.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 07:29 PM
johnransom:

For example, the wicked servant who hid his talent rather than investing it did exactly what he was supposed to do, that is, not to take personal risks. The others took risks no one would have expected them to take. Consequently, this is a much stronger message about how the kingdom of God is to be spread than it otherwise appears to our culturally-shaped vision.



Where is this parable about the wicked servant who hid his talent? Is that in the parable about the wicked king , who wanted his enemies killed before him?

[jpholding]

Still no admission of error, Stevie? Rather play change the subject?

Does Augsburger count as a modern anthropologist?

No, he counts as a modern Professor of Pastoral Care. Informed, but not an anthropologist. Didn't you learn the first time I corrected you for misusing his words?

Augsburger appears to think modern Chinese and Japanese people can feel guilt.

Considering the quote doesn't mention Japanese of Chinese people, that's quite a feat. Clue in: There are no doubt moderns of those groups who can feel guilt -- most because, like my friend, they have been acclimatized to a guilt-oriented culture. Not that this changes the primary shame-focus of the rest in the least.

As an aside Rohrbaugh says he has not heard of Burnett's book, which sure tells me how seriously others take its criticisms.

[johnransom]

Today @ 10:28 AM
jpholding:
But as has been shown by anthropologists such as Goffman, Cohen and Goodenough, the ancients had as full a sense of self-consciousness and of conscience as we do.

Which "Goffman"? Erving? Which "Cohen"? Titles? Please.

Hmm, let's see :read: - Goffman died in 1982 and Goodenough has been largely inactive since 1987. I guess Robyn must think that the most up-to-date research was written in the 24 years following Stendahl's 1963 article.

[MuggleOrSquib]

Steven, Robyn, et al;

Yesterday I spent some time checking on 'honor' 'shame' via Google (shame on me--it was a workday).
A number of recent instances of violence against women were apparently based in the 'honor/shame' orientation of the cultures in which such violence took place. The murder of a teenage Turkish girl by one of her brothers after her rape by another brother had resulted in pregnancy was one of the examples given.
It appears that 'honor/shame' remains as a current understanding of a number of cultures, at least within Women's Studies.
I found no reference within the first three pages of Googles responses to a disproof/discounting of the 'honor/shame' classification. Since I was working (SHAME, SHAME ON ME), I didn't feel it best to continue past the third page, where the proximity of the words 'honor' and 'shame' was decreasing to the point that the sites were not relevant to my search.

As for y'all--Shame on y'all. Ad hominem arguments, personal attacks, characterizing both sides. I can't say who's worse. I have noticed equally inflaming language from both sides.
JPHolding--you appear, by your behaviour, to view your opponents in debate as enemies. I base this interpretation on the Sun Tzu quote, which you seem to be observing. Since they don't refer to the same quote, I have no idea of their purposes. I just find the behaviour of so many in this debate shameful.
Shame on y'all,
Bob Griffin

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 07:43 PM
jpholding:


Does Augsburger count as a modern anthropologist?

No, he counts as a modern Professor of Pastoral Care. Informed, but not an anthropologist. Didn't you learn the first time I corrected you for misusing his words?

Augsburger appears to think modern Chinese and Japanese people can feel guilt.

Considering the quote doesn't mention Japanese of Chinese people, that's quite a feat. Clue in: There are no doubt moderns of those groups who can feel guilt -- most because, like my friend, they have been acclimatized to a guilt-oriented culture. Not that this changes the primary shame-focus of the rest in the least.


Holding is now having trouble with the word 'universal', which appeared in the quote I gave of the review of Augsburger.

Apparently, Holding does not think Japan and China are in the universe. And Holding dare not quote what he first wrote about Augsburger, (not in its entirety anyway),

Holding had on his article :- '. In particular, honor and shame rather than innocence and guilt are the issue: we do not think in terms of Jiminy Crickets in our heads, but rather base values on the group as a whole.'

Now Holding says this is wrong, and some people in that society do feel guilt.

Why does Holding not just admit that Biblical people could feel guilt, as any normal , non-psycopathic person can?

Holding is now backing off from his fomer position. Now we have 'primary shame-focus', when he originally wanted to claim that there were no feelings of guilt or conscience at all in Biblical times.

Everybody agrees that honour and shame are of primary focus in many cultures at most times - even today.

But a sceptic said some Biblical characters felt guilt, so Holding was forced to deny that - hence his ludicrous position that there were no feelings of guilt or conscience in Biblical times, which he is starting to back away from.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 09:23 PM
MuggleOrSquib:

Steven, Robyn, et al;

A number of recent instances of violence against women were apparently based in the 'honor/shame' orientation of the cultures in which such violence took place. The murder of a teenage Turkish girl by one of her brothers after her rape by another brother had resulted in pregnancy was one of the examples given.
It appears that 'honor/shame' remains as a current understanding of a number of cultures, at least within Women's Studies.

As for y'all--Shame on y'all. Ad hominem arguments, personal attacks, characterizing both sides. I can't say who's worse. I have noticed equally inflaming language from both sides.


Of course, shame/honour is important in many places, but Holding wanted to claim that Biblical characters had no conscience and no feelings of guilt.

If you can point out my personal attacks, then I will apologise for them.

[MuggleOrSquib]

Steven,
In the example of the Turkish girl, the community lauded the murderer, who had removed the stain on the family's honor. Similarly, if a woman is involved in an adulterous affair, it doesn't affect the family's honor unless it is known.

I won't go searching out examples of inflamatory speech by you or others, as (shame on me) this is the middle of my workday, and I am paid to program (or research database stuff...).

If you review your earlier posts, you will find a number of places where your word or phrase choice is inflammatory, attacking the person(s) to whom you are responding. By the way, this current paragraph is NOT addressed to Steven alone, or to the skeptics alone. I don't believe everyone posting in this thread exhibits this behaviour, but many do.
Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[jpholding]

Yesterday @ 09:23 PM
MuggleOrSquib:

JPHolding--you appear, by your behaviour, to view your opponents in debate as enemies.

Correct to an extent, ideologically speaking but not personally. When/if you know me better you will understand. :smile:

[jpholding]

Holding is now having trouble with the word 'universal', which appeared in the quote I gave of the review of Augsburger.

Yes, because you try to use it to mean "every person". Augsberger means "every culture has some".

Holding had on his article :- '. In particular, honor and shame rather than innocence and guilt are the issue: we do not think in terms of Jiminy Crickets in our heads, but rather base values on the group as a whole.'

Yes, and what?

Now Holding says this is wrong, and some people in that society do feel guilt.

Good grief, Stevie, my guest writer said that there were people in that society who had assimilated values from this culture. Have you signed up for Laubach yet?

Why does Holding not just admit that Biblical people could feel guilt, as any normal , non-psycopathic person can?

Because it is an error to simply say so as you have.

Holding is now backing off from his fomer position.

I ain't backin' off diddly. You're taking my correction of your excesses and Robyn's as a concession.

And we're still waiting for some apologies from you for misattributing my guest's words to me. Good heavens, Stevie, yer one craven item.

[geebob]

As for y'all--Shame on y'all. Ad hominem arguments, personal attacks, characterizing both sides. I can't say who's worse. I have noticed equally inflaming language from both sides.

It's a pretty interesting discussion even though pretty irritating at times.

[Robyn Banks]

johnransom:
Hmm, let's see :read: - Goffman died in 1982 and Goodenough has been largely inactive since 1987. I guess Robyn must think that the most up-to-date research was written in the 24 years following Stendahl's 1963 article.

Your statement is an illogical attempt at irony. As I have explained, most of Biblical scholarship since the mid 20th century has been ignoring modern anthropological advances. They are stuck in 1950s behavioralist models. This is the fault of Biblical scholarship, not of anthropology.

As 'Holding' admits, the Bible scholar he cites hasn't even made himself aware of Burnett's book, written in 2001.

About time ya'll caught up! :rofl:

Robyn

[stevencarrwork]

Yesterday @ 10:13 PM
MuggleOrSquib:


If you review your earlier posts, you will find a number of places where your word or phrase choice is inflammatory, attacking the person(s) to whom you are responding. By the way, this current paragraph is NOT addressed to Steven alone, or to the skeptics alone. I don't believe everyone posting in this thread exhibits this behaviour, but many do.


Examples please?

[jpholding]

[i]Today @ 06:33 AM
As 'Holding' admits, the Bible scholar he cites hasn't even made himself aware of Burnett's book, written in 2001.


I am sure he is also not aware of the last 3 Garfield comic collections, the Waldo books, and the latest item of collected pieces from The Onion. But you would probably find the first two useful for purchase, for research on tektonics.com.

Scratch that. None of them are by bishops who frequent girlie bars.

:bonk:

When you get a documented fact, let us know.

[Robyn Banks]

jpholding:
I am sure he is also not aware of the last 3 Garfield comic collections, the Waldo books, and the latest item of collected pieces from The Onion. But you would probably find the first two useful for purchase, for research on tektonics.com.
The only difference between tektonics.org and the Onion is that the Onion-writers know they are talking nonsense.
:rofl: :yipee: :yipee: :rofl: :rockon: :rockon: :teeth: :lol:

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 08:44 PM
Robyn Banks:


The only difference between tektonics.org and the Onion is that the Onion-writers know they are talking nonsense.

Actually I rather doubt it. The only nonsense I've seen him write is due to the fact that he's a Protestant adn has the typical prejudices 9I can't believe I actually saw him call us Romanists once).

[MuggleOrSquib]

Steven,
You asked for examples. I will admit that both JPHolding and Robyn appear to outdo you, but here are some of yours:
Postd On:
03-14-2003 at 10:53 PM
"Don't you have any dictionaries in America?

Are you saying you don't know what a conscience is?"


03-17-2003 at 05:56 AM
"John shows once again the startling insight expected of a graduate of the top university in England."

03-17-2003 at 03:08 PM

Most of the post ending with "But non-Ransom logic is too simple."

03-19-2003 at 07:14 AM
"Now we all know what Holding thinks of the honesty of Chinese people born in America.

Curiously, although these American-born Chinese were born in a Western society, with notions of guilt and conscience, Holding does not think these American-born Chinese have any conscience and considers many of them to be completely dishonest."

and 04:49 PM
---------
At about that message I got bored with looking through your messages simply to find instances of less than gentlemanly behaviour, especially since others are at least as openly scornful and sarcastic.

I am wondering whether JPHolding understood my reference to his signature, since he seems to excel in irritating his opponents.

Robyn,
A simple note. Jerry Falwell, with whom I can only agree on the time of day if I've already checked my watch, gained points with the public by responding politely and with a soft voice to his opponents. (I wouldn't have been able to speak with him so politely, as I was deeply disturbed by his influence on the American public).
If this is just a mud-slinging game, then I am out of line. If on the other hand this is supposed to be an intelligent discussion, then allowing Holding's attacks to cause you to respond in kind does you no service.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 05:59 AM
MuggleOrSquib:

Steven,
You asked for examples. I will admit that both JPHolding and Robyn appear to outdo you, but here are some of yours:
Postd On:
03-14-2003 at 10:53 PM
"Don't you have any dictionaries in America?

Are you saying you don't know what a conscience is?"



But somebody had asked what a conscience was! Why not advise him to use a dictionary, if he was really saying he was unsure what a conscience was.


Today @ 05:59 AM
MuggleOrSquib:

03-19-2003 at 07:14 AM
"Now we all know what Holding thinks of the honesty of Chinese people born in America.

Curiously, although these American-born Chinese were born in a Western society, with notions of guilt and conscience, Holding does not think these American-born Chinese have any conscience and considers many of them to be completely dishonest."



I was simply quoting Holding's article! Gosh, if you think repeating Holding's own posted words is mud-slinging.....

[Faramir]

Just to put things into context:



03-14-2003 @ 10:13 AM
Faramir:

Hey Steve.

For clarity sake, could you gives a definition of what you mean by conscience?

Thanks (emphasis added)


03-14-2003 @ 11:52 AM
Jaltus:

I think if you defined what a conscience was, then maybe we could get down to brass tacks. (emphasis added)


03-14-2003 @ 11:58 AM
Hamster:

Agree - what do you mean by 'conscience' exactly? A little nagging voice or sensation that helps us determine the right course of action? (emphasis added)


Today @ 09:03 AM
stevencarrwork:

But somebody had asked what a conscience was! Why not advise him to use a dictionary, if he was really saying he was unsure what a conscience was.


Steve you either misunderstood a very simple request, or you misrepresented the meaning trying to make people look stupid for asking an honest question. Either way, it reflects poorly on you.

Where did anyone say that they didn’t know what conscience meant. You see, to discuss issues coherently, the people discussing must have an agreed upon definition of key terms. At least three people wanted to know what you meant by conscience.

No one was saying that they did not know what conscience meant. I, for one, just wanted to make sure that we were all talking about the same thing. You see we had a similar problem with the word contrived in another thread. Of course you were more than happy to give a definition in that thread.


Today @ 09:03 AM
stevencarrwork:


"Now we all know what Holding thinks of the honesty of Chinese people born in America.

Curiously, although these American-born Chinese were born in a Western society, with notions of guilt and conscience, Holding does not think these American-born Chinese have any conscience and considers many of them to be completely dishonest."


I was simply quoting Holding's article! Gosh, if you think repeating Holding's own posted words is mud-slinging.....

Really, you were quoting JP? Did he actually say the he, “does not think these American-born Chinese have any conscience and considers many of them to be dishonest.” Or was that what you thought he meant?

Of course you have demonstrated (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=40190#post40190) elswere that you are unable to understand what JP means at times, so I guess this is excusable.

Denial Steve, it is more than just a river in Egypt. :no:

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 03:19 PM
Faramir:

Just to put things into context:







[QUOTE]Today @ 03:19 PM
Faramir:


Where did anyone say that they didnÂ’t know what conscience meant. You see, to discuss issues coherently, the people discussing must have an agreed upon definition of key terms. At least three people wanted to know what you meant by conscience.

No one was saying that they did not know what conscience meant. I, for one, just wanted to make sure that we were all talking about the same thing.



As always, Christians play word-games rather than try to discuss something substantive. This is what Christian apologetics is about - they have no evidence , so their first tactic is to redefine words to create confusion and doubt. Holding contrives to do this in virtually all of his articles.



And, I did give a definition of conscience in this thread, despite Christian timewasting trying to divert the topic away from Holding's claim that Jesus would not have had a conscience, as people in Biblical times did not have a conscience..



Today @ 03:19 PM
Faramir:

Really, you were quoting JP? Did he actually say the he, “does not think these American-born Chinese have any conscience and considers many of them to be dishonest.” Or was that what you thought he meant?



The words I gave were Holding's own words.

Again you refuse to discuss anything substantive, such as whether JP actually agrees with what he posted.

[jpholding]

Squib: It was understood. However there are several years of history here that you don't know about. You just stepped into the Hundred Years War in Year 99. :smile:

SPL: The word "Romanist" was actually used by one of my guest writers who is a staunch Lutheran. I don't think he meant to offend. I also found it in a quote by Ouseley.

[Faramir]

Today @ 10:30 AM in Post # (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=41614#post41614)
stevencarrwork:

As always, Christians play word-games rather than try to discuss something substantive. This is what Christian apologetics is about - they have no evidence , so their first tactic is to redefine words to create confusion and doubt. Holding contrives to do this in virtually all of his articles.

Wow, you have discovered our secret. :no:

:huh: Christians, asked you to define a word, and now you are accusing us of redefining words to create confusion? Your logic escapes me.


Today @ 10:30 AM in Post # (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=41614#post41614)
stevencarrwork:

And, I did give a definition of conscience in this thread, despite Christian timewasting trying to divert the topic away from Holding's claim that Jesus would not have had a conscience, as people in Biblical times did not have a conscience.

Time wasting? Seeking to come to a consensus on a key word is time wasting? I for one was seeking clarity. Again, your logic escapes me.

If you (as starter of the tread) had let us know from the beginning that the subject was JP’s position on this issue, it would have been a whole lot clearer. I had no idea what the purpose of your question was, until Hamster mentioned JP’s position. It seems to me that you are the one who tried to divert attention away from the real topic of this thread. Or at least failed to disclose your intent long enough to try to sow some division between JP and other Christians. Why else would you not mention JP’s position in your initial post (Or do you deny that this otherwise vague question was in fact directed at JP's position). Deceit is not very becoming Steve.



Today @ 10:30 AM in Post # (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=41614#post41614)
stevencarrwork:
The words I gave were Holding's own words.

Again you refuse to discuss anything substantive, such as whether JP actually agrees with what he posted.

Oh, now whether or not JP agrees with what he posted is substantive? How about the fact that you still say that they were JP’s own words, even though he has made it clear that someone else wrote them? Is that substantive

Since this issue is so substantive to you, and since I can not speak for JP, I will (yet again) show you where he has already answered this earth shattering questions. http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=39904#post39904

If you have any more questions, then I will extend the offer I made to you in another thread here http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=40757#post40757



However, if you could point out which question that you asked, but did not get an answer to, I will be happy to answer it for you, or (more likely) show you where on the thread the question was answered.

[stevencarrwork]

Faramir lambasts me for saying that the words Holding types into his posts (words Holding agrees with), are Holding's words.

I never claimed Holding originated the words, but anybody with an ounce of Christian charity would think it reasonable to refer to words in a poster's posting as that poster's words.

And when I ask a question, to try to get an answer, Christians first claim that the concept of conscience is not clear, and then accuse me of deceit - just for asking a question, to find out if Holding's bizarre theory that internal consciences did not exist 2,000 years ago was shared by his fellow Christians.

Menawhile, I get insulted on this forum, called 'sick' , 'perverted', 'obnoxious', 'rude', 'lunatic' etc. - by people who are supposed to be model Christians.

I can't be bothered to review the thread to see if Faramir ever answered the question in the first post if Jesus had a conscience, so I will assume, that Faramir, like his hero, has no concsience.

And I will finish my debate with Pate, and then leave the Christians to stew in their vomit ( to use a Biblical phrase, which Christians used about each other)

This forum has been a useful reminder of the venom, hatred, unreasonableness, spite and bile which is the destiny of fundamentalists - Islamic or Christian.

However, I find it amusing that JP (No Link) Holding is so scared of letting people read http://www.theskepticalreview.com/ that he cannot even bring himself to mention it. It took me ages to work out why he would lie about me posting on tsr.com when I had never even heard of that website, before I realised that he was not lying at all - he simply cannot allow links to the site, and so cannot mention it.

[Piebald]

to find out if Holding's bizarre theory that internal consciences did not exist 2,000 years ago was shared by his fellow Christians.

By "Holding's" you mean the expert he cited's theory, right?

This forum has been a useful reminder of the venom, hatred, unreasonableness, spite and bile which is the destiny of fundamentalists - Islamic or Christian.

Be careful! Someone might find out your home adress and the name of your loved ones and post it on the Internet for all to see... no telling what these crazy fundamentalists will do out of spite.

[jpholding]

I never claimed Holding originated the words, but anybody with an ounce of Christian charity would think it reasonable to refer to words in a poster's posting as that poster's words.

We'll miss all these convoluted excuses of yours, Stevie.

Menawhile, I get insulted on this forum, called 'sick' , 'perverted', 'obnoxious', 'rude', 'lunatic' etc. - by people who are supposed to be model Christians.

Last I checked that wasn't against the Rules of Conduct. Maybe you need to stop burning that straw man.

I can't be bothered to review the thread to see if Faramir ever answered the question in the first post if Jesus had a conscience, so I will assume, that Faramir, like his hero, has no concsience.

Heck no. Ya too busy writing stuff like this.

However, I find it amusing that JP (No Link) Holding is so scared of letting people read http://www.theskepticalreview.com/ that he cannot even bring himself to mention it. It took me ages to work out why he would lie about me posting on tsr.com when I had never even heard of that website,

It sure tells us enough that you take an abbreviation in such a paranoid way. It also tells us quite a bit inasmuch as it took you so long to figure out that that is what it was:

The Skeptical Review

TSR

Stevie: "What's TSR?" :duh:

[Pilgrim]

Today @ 05:47 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42312#post42312)
stevencarrwork:

Faramir lambasts me for saying that the words Holding types into his posts (words Holding agrees with), are Holding's words.

I never claimed Holding originated the words, but anybody with an ounce of Christian charity would think it reasonable to refer to words in a poster's posting as that poster's words.

And when I ask a question, to try to get an answer, Christians first claim that the concept of conscience is not clear, and then accuse me of deceit - just for asking a question, to find out if Holding's bizarre theory that internal consciences did not exist 2,000 years ago was shared by his fellow Christians.

Menawhile, I get insulted on this forum, called 'sick' , 'perverted', 'obnoxious', 'rude', 'lunatic' etc. - by people who are supposed to be model Christians.

I can't be bothered to review the thread to see if Faramir ever answered the question in the first post if Jesus had a conscience, so I will assume, that Faramir, like his hero, has no concsience.

And I will finish my debate with Pate, and then leave the Christians to stew in their vomit ( to use a Biblical phrase, which Christians used about each other)

This forum has been a useful reminder of the venom, hatred, unreasonableness, spite and bile which is the destiny of fundamentalists - Islamic or Christian.

However, I find it amusing that JP (No Link) Holding is so scared of letting people read http://www.theskepticalreview.com/ that he cannot even bring himself to mention it. It took me ages to work out why he would lie about me posting on tsr.com when I had never even heard of that website, before I realised that he was not lying at all - he simply cannot allow links to the site, and so cannot mention it.

You're langauge and tone throughout indicate that you are no different than the Christians you chastise. It would seem to me that modeling grace or "charity" would be the best way to teach it and then recieve it.

We'll be sorry to see you go it you do actually leave. It's always beneficial to have many points of view so that we can critically think about things.

Pilgrim

[Faramir]

Today @ 05:47 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42312#post42312)
stevencarrwork:

Faramir lambasts me for saying that the words Holding types into his posts (words Holding agrees with), are Holding's words.

I never claimed Holding originated the words, but anybody with an ounce of Christian charity would think it reasonable to refer to words in a poster's posting as that poster's words.

Well Steve, when you say stuff like, "The words I gave were Holdings own". It sounds like you are saying he originated the words. If that is not what you meant, then thanks for clarifying.
Better late than never.


Today @ 05:47 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42312#post42312)
stevencarrwork:
And when I ask a question, to try to get an answer, Christians first claim that the concept of conscience is not clear, and then accuse me of deceit - just for asking a question, to find out if Holding's bizarre theory that internal consciences did not exist 2,000 years ago was shared by his fellow Christians.


:rofl: The deceit was not in asking the question, but your failure to disclose that it was JP's "bizarre theory" that you were questioning. It appears to me, that that omission was intentional. I think you were trying to get Christians to say "yes Jesus had a conscience" and then bring up JP's theory in an attempt to create divsion. If this was an honest oversite, I apologize.



Today @ 05:47 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42312#post42312)
stevencarrwork:Menawhile, I get insulted on this forum, called 'sick' , 'perverted', 'obnoxious', 'rude', 'lunatic' etc. - by people who are supposed to be model Christians.

Me too Steve, me too. I try very hard not to attack a person's individual character. However, this is a debate forum, and attacking a persons argument is part of the game.

Also, I try to give as good as I get. If a person is respectful and is seeking to engage in honest debate, then I will do the same. If a person comes here with a sarcastic and accusatory style, then I will do the same. I think you can figure out my opinion of your style.

Did I accuse you of be decietful. You bet you I did. The rules of this forum allow for such accusations if they can be backed up, I explained above why I thought you were being deceiptful. If you want to explain why you did not reveal that you were questioning JP's "bizarre theory" in your initial post, I'm all ears.


Today @ 05:47 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42312#post42312)
stevencarrwork:
I can't be bothered to review the thread to see if Faramir ever answered the question in the first post if Jesus had a conscience, so I will assume, that Faramir, like his hero, has no concsience.


I understand if you can't be bothered to reveiw the thread. However, you constantly claim that no one has answered you. (And I am constantly showing you otherwise) If you do not have time to reveiw the thread, fine. But when you continually accuse Christians of not answering your questions even though they have, don't then try to say you can't be bothered when the answer is pointed out to you.



Today @ 05:47 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42312#post42312)
stevencarrwork:
And I will finish my debate with Pate, and then leave the Christians to stew in their vomit ( to use a Biblical phrase, which Christians used about each other)

I really hope you will stay Steve, but the choice is yours. I hope you reconsider.


Today @ 05:47 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42312#post42312)
stevencarrwork:
This forum has been a useful reminder of the venom, hatred, unreasonableness, spite and bile which is the destiny of fundamentalists - Islamic or Christian.

I can only speak for myself, but I for one I feel no anymostity toward you. Do I disagree with you? Of course. Do I have serious problems with your arguments? You bet I do. Do I feel any enmity toward you personally? No.


Today @ 05:47 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42312#post42312)
stevencarrwork:However, I find it amusing that JP (No Link) Holding is so scared of letting people read http://www.theskepticalreview.com/ that he cannot even bring himself to mention it. It took me ages to work out why he would lie about me posting on tsr.com when I had never even heard of that website, before I realised that he was not lying at all - he simply cannot allow links to the site, and so cannot mention it.

Well, I for one have no problems finding the site on my own. JP's reasons are JP's and I believe that he has addressed them.

[kofh2u]

Steve, tho' others are laboring over your question, and even though it appears rhetorical essentially, anyway, I submit this point of view.

Jesus testified to the presence of archetypical factors motivating human behavior. He pinpointed and identfied the seven evil spirits underlying our behavior. And, by his example, he illuminated the existence of an all too absent facility of Human Conscience in our society.

To suggest that Jesus, or any modern homo sapien, is without the facility of Conscience, albeit subconscious and perhaps unutilized, is tantamount to saying a person has no SELF, or is without a Libido.

Jesus raised our consciousness to recognize that this facility is available to us, and that by exercise, it becomes manifest as the Holy (separated from the other seven) Spirit.

Christ had Conscience and modelled it for us, as example to be emulated.