Questions on Patron/Client relationships

[jpholding]

All evidence is experiential and subjective.

A desperate epistemic ploy on your part, one which leads inevitably to a train wreck; but which is found appealing by those who wish to pick and choose among evidence to reach the conclusion they want.

This is no different from saying:

“Once again, nothing but an imposition of ancient patron/client traditions where they don't belong. The sinners were called to join a family in substance -- that's intimacy. Period”

Except that I have the gathered evidence of scholars of anthropology and sociology to back up my point, whereas all you have is a desperate resort to personal experience.

Christ’s mission doesn’t belong to the ancients nor to any category of people; Christ’s mission is to each individual. The ancients interpreted that mission according to their lights as we do according to ours.

Once again, merely a desperate expedient of resort to subjectivity. You have no evidence -- none -- that the covenant is approached on any different terms than those found by the apostles. Indeed, the vast majority of people who have ever lived have been agonistic and collectivist; you're demanding special privileges for a scant .01% of people who have ever lived, insisting that God caters to the unique psychological neuroses of modern people whose excess leisure time has led them into an indulgent, selfish perception of how their relationship with God works, one made in their own image, not derived from any data of the text or anywhere but epistemically-worthless "experience" that is just as readily duplicated by anyone from Mormons to LSD consumers.

Take a good look in the mirror -- you'll see a cultural bigot there. It is you who is demanding a "privileged position" by turning Christ into a formula of your own, in which the variables can be changed at will.

One of the main criticisms leveled at Jesus in the New Testament was that he consorted with sinners. I don’t think this would have happened had his relationship with sinners been purely or even primarily one of standing on street corners preaching about patronage contracts.

Saying this simply shows your ignorance of the ancient world. Patronage, again, was the grease that moved the wheels. Everyone sought the patronage of someone more wealthy and/or powerful. His message of the Gospel WAS an offer of patronage by the God of Israel: He forgives your sins, and you become his servant and receive rewards due you for your service at the end.

On the contrary, he identified directly with the common people in the same way the Old Testament prophets did.

And I have already shown that this is something you impose your fantasies on.

So both concepts, the formal/contractual, and the familial/intimate, are present in the New Testament.

The latter is not; it is again something you impose on the text as part of a theological wish-fulfillment.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

This should be amusing.

[NeilUnreal]

Take a good look in the mirror -- you'll see a cultural bigot there. It is you who is demanding a "privileged position" by turning Christ into a formula of your own, in which the variables can be changed at will.

No, not a “privileged position” but I am demanding an equal position with those in the culture to which Christ came incarnate. Because Christ rose and is so incarnate here as well. (We moderns do have the benefit of historical hindsight, but that’s a function of incident rather than privilege.)

Saying this simply shows your ignorance of the ancient world. Patronage, again, was the grease that moved the wheels. Everyone sought the patronage of someone more wealthy and/or powerful.

I don’t disagree with this at all; of course Christ presented Himself in terms they could understand. He also challenged that understanding, and the gospels are replete with those challenges and their effects. But of course Christ also had to touch a lot of common ground, and in a patron/client culture, a comprehendible message would show aspects of that.

His message of the Gospel WAS an offer of patronage by the God of Israel: He forgives your sins, and you become his servant and receive rewards due you for your service at the end.

This is where I part company. The message of the Gospel is a lot of things; a transactional call to something like a patron/client bargain describes one facet of it. But it is a mistake to say that the Gospel is that or is limited to that. The patron/client aspect is merely one small, limited view into the matter.

And that the patron/client view is an inferior or more limited view in comparison to the familial/intimate view is made plain by Jesus in the Gospels themselves:

“Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.”

“He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”

And by Paul and others in the Epistles:

“For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.”

“Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God…”

“Beloved, now are we the sons of God…”

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God…”

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

"Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: but when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

"And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”

Now, are patron/client transactions a part of family life? They are. But as the Scriptures make clear they are an inferior thing to being an heir. They come into play only as a kind of schoolmaster or last resort when normal family intimacy breaks down. As long as family relations are based only on that type of transaction and not on the substance of intimacy, the prodigal is still wandering and has not yet really come home.

-Neil

[jpholding]

No, not a “privileged position” but I am demanding an equal position with those in the culture to which Christ came incarnate.

Yes, a privileged position, because you are demanding that God cater to a unique psychological profile held by a scant .01% of people who have ever lived, and doing so apart from any evidence whatsoever aside from a vague experiential ground that is as well claimed by people who snort cocaine or worship Sun Myung Moon.

I don’t disagree with this at all; of course Christ presented Himself in terms they could understand. He also challenged that understanding, and the gospels are replete with those challenges and their effects.

Christ NEVER challenged any understanding that had to do with the nature of the covenant, and NEVER insinuated or indicated that the relationship was malleable to the point of accomodating the self-centered preferences of a distant-future leisure class. He also stood firm on many other issues (e.g., Jewish monolatry), so you cannot cite challenge on other issues as any sort of precedent.

The message of the Gospel is a lot of things; a transactional call to something like a patron/client bargain describes one facet of it. But it is a mistake to say that the Gospel is that or is limited to that. The patron/client aspect is merely one small, limited view into the matter.

No, your view is unjustifably expansive, again based on zero hard evidence.

And that the patron/client view is an inferior or more limited view in comparison to the familial/intimate view is made plain by Jesus in the Gospels themselves:

No, once again, you mangle the texts by reading INTO them the level of intimacy found in modern individualism. I have pointed this out repeatedly, noting that soicology and anthropology stands behind this. You have replied repeatedly with nothing but forced, anachronistic readings of the text. To wit:

“Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.”

“He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”

This is astonishing ignorance on your part. A "friend" in the ancient world meant nothing of personal intimacy; it meant someone in a position of privilege -- recall how Pilate was reckoned in terms of a "friend of Caesar". This does NOT mean that he and Caesar were buddies, or that they even knew each other; it means that Pilate had Caesar's favor and endorsement in his posiiton as procurator/prefect.

As for the other, it is an expression of collectivist mindset, indicating the believer's status in the Body; it does not in the least imply any sort of modern understanding of familiarity or intimacy. That again is you reading things into the text apart from original context.

Are you truly so self-centered and arrogant that you are going to argue that these texts have some special meaning that was otherwise unknown for thousands of years, was otherwise undetectable to 99.999% of people who have ever lived? Are you that provincial?

“For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.”

Sorry, but as I noted before, the meaning of "Abba" is not what it was reckoned to be by Jeremias. As for all the references to "sons" I remind you AGAIN that not even in family relationships was there the sort of "intimacy" and familiarity we find in modern relationships, and especially not between fathers and children.

Now, are patron/client transactions a part of family life?

They ARE expressed in family life. Your family is essentially your "home" patronage. It was a natural patronage. You are again reading modern values into the text.

]quote] As long as family relations are based only on that type of transaction and not on the substance of intimacy, the prodigal is still wandering and has not yet really come home.
[/QUOTE]

Enjoy your delusions...I am still waiting for an answer to my question, so I'll post it several times to stress how you're avoiding it:

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

It is people like you who are the cause of the decimation of Christianity in the Western nations, and the reduction of it to an ineffectual cotton-candy production which thinks it is all right to pray for a new BMW.

[NeilUnreal]

Yes, a privileged position, because you are demanding that God cater to a unique psychological profile held by a scant .01% of people who have ever lived, and doing so apart from any evidence whatsoever aside from a vague experiential ground that is as well claimed by people who snort cocaine or worship Sun Myung Moon.

I’m not demanding that God do anything; I am merely suggesting that God treats with individuals, be they the individuals in 99.99% of the world, the individuals in 0.01% of the world, or the single individual that represents 1.489e-8% of the world. All are equally privileged; the 99.99% have no more right to claim special privilege with God because of their collective psychological profile than does the single individual because of his or her unique psychological profile.

This may be a shocker, but in God’s eyes you, me, Sun Myung Moon, Timothy Leary, and Joseph Smith all occupy equally privileged positions. (Or perhaps I should say equally unprivileged positions.) This does not mean that the ideas of all are equally correct or efficacious, because I don’t believe they are. It does mean that each of us has equal access to God and to the truth and substance of God should we choose to draw near and avail ourselves of it. Each of us, equal.

Otherwise, establishing the truth of a faith or an idea becomes a popularity contest. It becomes a case of “the majority of the world thinks such-and-such, therefore God must think such-and-such.”

But even there, I feel, the familial view wins. One of the egregious things said about the Japanese during the Second World Ward was that they did not feel personal things like death, loss, and empathy. It was said that their Buddhist culture and collective military mindset robbed them of such things. And it was true for some soldiers, I fear. But the American G.I.s and others who came into direct contact with Japanese civilians saw other views. To quote Patrick K. O’Donnell quoting Harry Akune in Into the Rising Sun:

A Marine, I was talking to him, and I said: “What do you think of the Japanese Soldiers?” “I don’t like them because of the way they treated us.” “What do you think of the Japanese people?” He said, “They are the salt of the earth.” I didn’t quite get that and asked him what he meant. He said, “I’d be out working in the field in a vegetable patch, and this little old Japanese lady would come by and walk right by me and drop a hot sweet potato. Even with the guard looking at her, she’d just slip it to me. How can you hate people like that?”

Now, I ask, what patronage did the little old lady owe to the soldier, or he to her? Here, in the midst of awful war, between adversaries as far a part as any two adversaries have been, we see a transaction not based on contract, but on simple human kindness. The two in essence, as far as allowed by circumstance, broke bread together. They became a small human family in the midst of hell.

And so, I say, it is with all human families. At the remove of history, it is easy to read contractual coldness into the other. The soldiers could read such coldness into one another across remove of their weapons; the old lady and the P.O.W., not so removed, could read simple human empathy and intimacy. The greatest Roman patron no doubt looked on his firstborn with pride as an heir, but I’m sure he looked with yet more love as a simple father.

Because that’s our core; I/Thou, not I/It. And a contract, however important to “grease the wheels” of everyday life, is an I/It relationship, and God demands – God is – an I/Thou relationship.* The two soldiers existed in an I/It relationship, but the old lady and the soldier in an I/Thou relationship.

Think of that great transaction prefiguring Christ, the Passover lamb. It is not a communal sacrifice; it is not something one can buy or tithe. Rather, it is a family sacrifice, taken into the family hearth and kept for four days until it becomes part of the household. Then, in an act of communion, this new heir, this Paschal family member, is sacrificed and consumed. It is consumed with nothing remaining; the family is intact and has become one with the sacrifice and God. The blood on the doorposts is not the blood of a patron/client contract, it is the blood of identity.

-Neil

p.s. I think that little old Japanese lady deserves that BMW a lot more than I do.

*As elucidated by the philosopher Martin Buber.

[Mr Minder]

Sounds like a sociologist vs. a philosopher...

[NeilUnreal]

Sounds like a sociologist vs. a philosopher...

And that, I believe, is as cogent an analysis of this disparity as is possible.

-Neil

[jpholding]

Seldom have I seen so much pig fat applied as a way to get out of answering questions.

I’m not demanding that God do anything; I am merely suggesting that God treats with individuals, be they the individuals in 99.99% of the world, the individuals in 0.01% of the world, or the single individual that represents 1.489e-8% of the world. All are equally privileged; the 99.99% have no more right to claim special privilege with God because of their collective psychological profile than does the single individual because of his or her unique psychological profile.

Sorry, that's just another fantasy of yours. There's no evidence anywhere that God accomodates unique personal psychological profiles in such a way as to act contrary to His revealed nature; rather, it is clear that as disciples, converts are called to learn how to meet God on HIS terms, not impose their own cultural accomodations. You would have it as though Canaanites could come to YHWH thinking of Him as a deity to be worshipped with orgiastic sexual rites.

And I have news for you: Those in covenant with God DO have more privilege than those who do not, and that is precisely because of the covenant relationship. At the same time, the paradigm of rewards in heaven also indicates stratification rather than equality.

God is not Obama. Get over it.

This may be a shocker, but in God’s eyes you, me, Sun Myung Moon, Timothy Leary, and Joseph Smith all occupy equally privileged positions. (Or perhaps I should say equally unprivileged positions.) This does not mean that the ideas of all are equally correct or efficacious, because I don’t believe they are.

You're still dodging the question, which is how we know they are NOT correct, based on your paradigm of experience. Obviously you know that you cannot answer this question, and so you repeatedly avoid it. I'll post it again for emphasis.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

I am not asking about "access to God", I am asking about

TRUTH CLAIMS

Do I need to draw it in crayon for you so that you'll understand it, and then nail your shoes to the ground (like my predecessor St. Patrick) to keep you from running away from it?

But even there, I feel, the familial view wins.

How you "feel" means exactly nothing in terms of the facts. The facts are that the "familial" view is in error.

Now, I ask, what patronage did the little old lady owe to the soldier, or he to her? Here, in the midst of awful war, between adversaries as far a part as any two adversaries have been, we see a transaction not based on contract, but on simple human kindness

Anecdote is a rather idiotic way to argue. It might not occur to you that 20th century Japanese society is far from a match for first century Palestine; while the agonistic tenor is strongly in place even in today's Japan, decades of exposure to American values (as initially bullied into the populace by Admiral Perry) indicates some measure of accomodation and transformation. Even so, you would once again be reading your values into the text; the dropping of the potato is just as well an act of grace intended to instigate a circle of mutual obligation. Without more data, nothing can be said, but given the social circumstances, it is far more likely that you AND the soldier are/were reading your values into the situation.

It speaks for itself that simple-minded anecdote is the best you can do here.

The greatest Roman patron no doubt looked on his firstborn with pride as an heir, but I’m sure he looked with yet more love as a simple father.

Your "surety" is worth exactly nothing, and is little more than an enacting of your subjective fantasies. You have yet to present a shred of evidence to contradict anthropological scholarship. That apparently is well beyond you.

Think of that great transaction prefiguring Christ, the Passover lamb. It is not a communal sacrifice; it is not something one can buy or tithe. Rather, it is a family sacrifice, taken into the family hearth and kept for four days until it becomes part of the household. Then, in an act of communion, this new heir, this Paschal family member, is sacrificed and consumed. It is consumed with nothing remaining; the family is intact and has become one with the sacrifice and God. The blood on the doorposts is not the blood of a patron/client contract, it is the blood of identity.

More imposed delusions of modern familial intimacy. It is patron/client, period, and your attempts to redescribe the situation in anachroinistic terms is not an argument but a fantasy of your own making. (What little I can find offhand says that the lamb was taken into the house not so that it could become a family member, but because it was a sign of disrespect to the Egyptians, who worshipped lambs. This at least makes far more sense within the social, agonistic context than your fantasies of it as some sort of beloved temporary family member.)

Do yourself a favor....don't smoke 'shrooms any more.

[jpholding]

Sounds like a sociologist vs. a philosopher...

Aye --discussing sociology. Which the philosopher knows as much about as he knows about quantum physics....

[NeilUnreal]

Those in covenant with God DO have more privilege than those who do not, and that is precisely because of the covenant relationship.

That may be true. Servants who have a covenant relationship with a master or patron do have more privilege than outsiders who do not. However, the heirs of that master have privilege an order of magnitude above even those servants with a covenant relationship. That privilege is based on a relationship of substance and not of covenant. Christ calls us all, individually, to become one substance with Him. And just as there is no adjudication whether my hand is indeed my hand or my foot is indeed my foot, there is no adjudication about whether one is or is not a member of Christ. One simply is or is not of one substance with Christ, and if one is, the legal proceedings of a covenant are bypassed as moot.

Anecdote is a rather idiotic way to argue.

Well, that may be, but at least I have several thousand years of good company. The Gospels themselves are largely comprised of anecdotes, and a lot of other great rhetorical writers were fond of anecdotes as well. Not that I’m comparing my arguments to the Gospels or those other greats; as Isaac Newton might have said, compared to those I’m like a kid playing with pebbles at the seashore. But try to imitate them in my small way.

It speaks for itself that simple-minded anecdote is the best you can do here.

The Japanese lady reminds me of another simple-minded anecdote, one that ends with:

”For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. I say unto you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.”

An simple anecdote that is also a prophecy which comes true as it is read! I remain amazed at the power such simple-minded anecdotes can convey when they have their foundation in an act of love (such that I feel unworthy even to relate such anecdotes as part of my surly arguments). But as Christ said, the Kingdom of Heaven is composed of such simple-minded acts. I’m not sure I’d want to stand up on the day of judgment and accuse either of these women of simply trying to transact quid-pro-quo contracts.

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

Ancient Roman, Canaanite and other deities were believed to work on a patron/client basis. Please explain why they are wrong while Judaism and Christianity are right. If the Egyptians entered into a patron/client relationship with the lamb they worshipped, does that make them more right than those who bought the lamb into their homes as an instrument of communion?

Because if patron/client relationships are the Gospel, it only makes sense to see the Gospel whenever and wherever those relationships obtain.

You have yet to present a shred of evidence to contradict anthropological scholarship.

I’m sure I feel no need to; I accept the evidence of their scholarship. I also accept the evidence of philosophers, theologians, mythologists, the Japanese lady, and my own life. Out of those analyses, I filter, interpret, correlate, make my synthesis, and sometimes remake it as new evidence demands. And I consistently find in that synthesis that:

1) Patron client relationships were indeed an important part of the ancient world (and of many aspects of our world).

2) Simple relationships of familiarity and kindness have been and continue to be an overriding feature of human life. Many of these acts appear to be completely altruistic.

3) The New Testament, both the Gospels and the Epistles, argues for the superiority of the familial over the contractual. The Hebrew prophets did the same. Common sense seems to suggest the same. The artists, poets, novelists, many philosophers, and my Mom telling me to be nice to my sister suggest the same. Christ’s sacrifice was the ultimate act of altruism, trumping all contracts, a new covenant sealed in God’s own blood, an intimate, familial covenant of I/Thou, not a patronage contract of I/It.

4) And I ask myself which is better: to see the world and even heaven as an Ayn Rand wilderness of contracts, or to see in the world and in heaven the best of what we mean when use words like “lover” and “family”? A world where every intimacy is a contract, or a world where contracts are mere parlor games between intimates?

A lot people have chosen the second option: admirable Christian saints, philosophers, and theologians, not to mention people of other faiths, and as Jonah might have added, also much cattle as well.

Did I pick that choice because I want it to be true? Probably. But maybe all right choices begin in wanting the right thing.

-Neil

[NeilUnreal]

Which the philosopher knows as much about as he knows about quantum physics...

Is it obvious I slightly favor the Copenhagen Interpretation but the Consciousness Collapse interpretation even more slightly still?

-Neil

[jpholding]

adjudication whether my hand is indeed my hand or my foot is indeed my foot, there is no adjudication about whether one is or is not a member of Christ. One simply is or is not of one substance with Christ, and if one is, the legal proceedings of a covenant are bypassed as moot.

Nice speech, irrelevant to my point, which you apparently cannot rebut.

Well, that may be, but at least I have several thousand years of good company. The Gospels themselves are largely comprised of anecdotes

Wrong. The Gospels are ancient biographies; they are composed of narrative episodes, not "anecdotes". Did you want to make a few more boneheaded exegetical statements, or do you have more to offer?

The Japanese lady reminds me of another simple-minded anecdote, one that ends with:

I'll pass on what you came up with while smoking the pepperoni, thanks....

I’m not sure I’d want to stand up on the day of judgment and accuse either of these women of simply trying to transact quid-pro-quo contracts.

Oh no, you're just content in the here and now to prostitute it for your own deluded purposes, apart from any hard data that affirms your view, eh?

Ancient Roman, Canaanite and other deities were believed to work on a patron/client basis. Please explain why they are wrong while Judaism and Christianity are right.

I see you can't answer my question. I will answer yours in spite of your evasion.

They are wrong because the Roman and Canaanite deities have been proven non-existent or else defeated by the very fact that their temples have been destroyed and their people's lands taken from them. That was the criteria whereby those deities were validated.

Too bad you're not educated enough to know what a simple question that is....now how about you answer MINE, or is that too hard for you?

If the Egyptians entered into a patron/client relationship with the lamb they worshipped, does that make them more right than those who bought the lamb into their homes as an instrument of communion?

Dumb question, since one cannot enter into a patronage relationship with someone either non-existent or without the power to provide the goods. In all of this you're only continuing to show your ignorance of how the system worked.

Because if patron/client relationships are the Gospel, it only makes sense to see the Gospel whenever and wherever those relationships obtain.

Good night you are stupid. P/C relationships are the mechanism whereby the Gospel is is provided to prospective clients, not "the message" itself.

I'm talking to a guy here who consults his Teddy Ruxpin when he needs an argument.

I’m sure I feel no need to; I accept the evidence of their scholarship. I also accept the evidence of philosophers, theologians, mythologists, the Japanese lady, and my own life. Out of those analyses, I filter, interpret, correlate, make my synthesis, and sometimes remake it as new evidence demands. And I consistently find in that synthesis that:

More like "contradiction" that you can't resolve, save my burying your head firmly between your buttocks. I have already answered all of these points; you are still doing nothing but anachronizing.

Fluffy-headed people like you are a cancer in the church today.

[NeilUnreal]

[quote=jpholding] Wrong. The Gospels are ancient biographies; they are composed of narrative episodes, not "anecdotes".[/quote[

This anecdote hang-up risks devolving into a tangential ad-hominem meta-argument, but it’s simple to address, so here goes… Biography and anecdote are not mutually exclusive. Casting around for a pithy quote about why this is so, I happened on this gem from Wikipedia: “An anecdote is a short tale narrating an interesting or amusing biographical incident.” Q.E.D. I am a member of the set of all people who value anecdotes, whereas you apparently are not; we can have that as a separate argument sometime.

They are wrong because the Roman and Canaanite deities have been proven non-existent or else defeated by the very fact that their temples have been destroyed and their people's lands taken from them. That was the criteria whereby those deities were validated.

Dumb question, since one cannot enter into a patronage relationship with someone either non-existent or without the power to provide the goods. In all of this you're only continuing to show your ignorance of how the system worked.

(This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one.) In your view, did those criteria obtain because of the patron/client nature of the god/human contract? That is, were those deities invalidated because they failed to live up to the contracts? Or in other words, in attempting a contract with [fill in the deity], the people were attempting to enter a contract with a being (real or imagined) which had no power to make this contract? And the subsequent failure of that contract is indicative of that lack of power?

Please explain why the Mormons or Leary are wrong while you are right.

OK, let me try to deal with this again so we can move on. But to expedite this, it would help to have the answers to a few questions. I’m not trying to be coy or rhetorical here, just trying to focus a bit. The questions are:

1) What kind of evidence are you asking for from me? Would a good restatement of the question be something like: “If you had it to do over, why would you become a Baptist instead of a Mormon?”

2) By “Leary” I assume you mean Timothy Leary. I’m not aware Leary had a well-defined belief system, so I’m guessing you mean something like: “Believing in wherever internal experience takes you.” Is that a valid assumption?

Fluffy-headed people like you are a cancer in the church today.

I feel awed to be in the presence of my own great wickedness, but I’m confident the church will survive me.

-Neil

[historic salve]

Wrong. The Gospels are ancient biographies; they are composed of narrative episodes, not "anecdotes". Did you want to make a few more boneheaded exegetical statements, or do you have more to offer?

JP, you know anecdotes and history aren't mutually exclusive categories. Chreiai are often defined as biographical anecdotes.

[jpholding]

JP, you know anecdotes and history aren't mutually exclusive categories. Chreiai are often defined as biographical anecdotes.

I agree. At the same time, my main issue with the shroom smoker is that he uses them as a reply to documented scholarly evidence. The main purpose of an anecdote is to amuse or inform, not establish social patterns. Regrettably, he doesn't do any of those things in his replies.

To that extent, the Gospels CAN be used anecdotally, but they were not intended for that purpose; it is a misuse of their purpose.

[jpholding]

[This anecdote hang-up risks devolving into a tangential ad-hominem meta-argument, but it’s simple to address, so here goes… Biography and anecdote are not mutually exclusive.

See my reply to HS. You're evading the issue by trying to get out of your ignorance of the genre question. The Gospels were not written for the anecdotal purposes, neither to amuse nor to titillate interest as a break from boredom. Spare me your ignorance and your contrived rationalizations.

we can have that as a separate argument sometime.

Sorry, no. Ignorant people like you need to be slammed for your errors as soon as you make them, because your utter indifference to reality makes you want to multiply them like rabbits on fertility medication.

(This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one.)

You're not capable of serious questions with a view of reality as governed by whatever you happen to be inhaling at the time, whether it be oxygen-rich gas or nitrous oxide.

In your view, did those criteria obtain because of the patron/client nature of the god/human contract? That is, were those deities invalidated because they failed to live up to the contracts? Or in other words, in attempting a contract with [fill in the deity], the people were attempting to enter a contract with a being (real or imagined) which had no power to make this contract? And the subsequent failure of that contract is indicative of that lack of power?

That is correct. Maybe you'll actually learn something one of these days, but I doubt it.

OK, let me try to deal with this again so we can move on. But to expedite this, it would help to have the answers to a few questions. I’m not trying to be coy or rhetorical here, just trying to focus a bit.

Baloney. You''ve been dancing away from the question for three rounds now, and this "focus" crap is just an excuse to dance around some more and evade a direct answer. Your passive-emergent dilly-dallying doesn't fool intellgient people.

I'll put it in teeny steps so you can look even more foolish by evading again:

You've defined "experience" as a validation criteria.

Mormons, Leary, etc. also use "experience" as a validation criteria.

How do we know you're right and they're wrong?

Your only possible answers:

1)" We don't. My system is epistemically worthless. But I really don't care."

2) " Oops. Guess I don't. I need to use objective evidence to show they're wrong. Uh oh, I guess that means my system is worthless."

3) "Oh, they're all right. Even if they contradict one another. Truth is whatever you want it to be. Wheee!"

It's clear that you know that no answer you give can get you out of this, which is why you're hemming, hawing, and decorating the room with flower petals right now.

I feel awed to be in the presence of my own great wickedness, but I’m confident the church will survive me.

The American church won't; it's less than 50 years from becoming as dead as the one in Europe, and with enough ignorant, la de da people like you around, that won't change anytime soon. Thank God for the Third World church, which is composed of people who recognize God in terms of the patronage model and have a vibrant, living faith that isn't rooted in self-centered experiences. Rhetorical self-debasement won't change the fact that people like YOU are killing Christianity in America with your delusional fantasies of God as a kissy-face fishing buddy and personal masseur. You're worse than Joel Osteen on that count.