Evangelicals full of fear

[Cow Poke]

Reminds me of the time my son called and asked if he could set off July 4th fireworks with his friend's family.

My response: "Only if an adult is present, only if you're not the one handling the fireworks, and only if you stay back a safe distance."

About 20-minutes later, I get a message from my wife saying, "I can't believe you told him could set off fireworks with his friends. I just saw him holding a Roman candle."

Apparently what my son heard was, "Yes, you can absolutely do whatever you want."

My mother told me I should be a lawyer.

I was rather notorious for sneaking by McDondald's on the way home from school and scarfing down a 29cent hamburger before supper.
One evening, she observed I wasn't loading up my plate, and she said "You've been to McDonald's today, haven't you?"
I looked her square in the eye and replied, "no, ma'am - wasn't anywhere NEAR McDondald's".

I was pretty much "home free" til my brother chimed in "no, I saw a Burger King wrapper in his car".

But I was NOWHERE NEAR McDonald's!!!!

[NorrinRadd]

But we have the specific labels that modify conservative, we recognize the different categories of conservative with the differences between social conservative and fiscal conservative recognized.



So, Bebbington's rectangle is not a useful definition for what is and is not evangelical?. Theological conservatism at one time recognized segregation and prohibitions on miscegenation as divinely ordained, integration was recognized as a theological liberal idea which threatened the Body of Christ.

I am dismayed to find that online definitions of "theological conservative" are amorphous blobs of double-talking gobbledygook. I'm pretty much left with a tautology: Evangelicalism := theological conservatism. To me, things like the doctrine of the trinity, the reality of the miracles of Christ, and the inspiration and authority of Scripture are "conservative" theologically. One can hold those views and arrive at "liberal" social views such as the equality of the "races" and sexes, the propriety of racial integration, etc.

[Charles]

1) Irrelevant

2) In BROAD terms, not EXHAUSTIVELY

3) He should not HAVE TO point to "some skeptics" because most people would naturally assume that he's not speaking in exhaustive terms about skeptics in either posts, but broadly, and not necessarily in an overlapping sense.

4) Again, irrelevant

5) Yes, it would be the rational way to understand his statements, because it's the way people write and speak ALL THE TIME.

6) No, we would not. There has been no need to do so up until now, and there's no need to do it from now on either.

Your last statement is interesting. Please explain how I would have to apply "an irrational and not very charitable interpretation" of your statements in order to allow for my own interpretation?

Number 1 and 4 is quite funny. The concept is used in the very same context, in the very same thread and in the very same discussion. If you find all of that irrelevant, you are looking for differences where, unfortunately for MM who contradicted himself, they don't exist.

Note yourself that when you read this, you will assume that by 1 and 4 I mean the same 1 and 4 that you pointed to. So much for "Irrelevant". And then even without any argument at all to support it. This is getting rather funny. Just claims, no arguments.

And, let's just see Mountain Mans posts again:

Nah, in my experience, skeptics have never believed that Christians really believe the Bible. [...]

Just the day before that, he wrote:

[...]

Skeptics before President Trump: "Christians are morons for believing the Bible."

Skeptics after President Trump: "Christians are morons for believing the Bible."

What's really changed?

And, remember, the first statement was one Mountain Man claimed was a general statement, based on experience. If that is true, did he make a statement contradicting his "knowledge" on purpose just the day before the first statement? I don't feel to certain we will get an answer. It is more likely that some will make statements about how points about how language actually works are "irrelevant".

[JonathanL]

Number 1 and 4 is quite funny. The concept is used in the very same context, in the very same thread and in the very same discussion. If you find all of that irrelevant, you are looking for differences where, unfortunately for MM who contradicted himself, they don't exist.

Note yourself that when you read this, you will assume that by 1 and 4 I mean the same 1 and 4 that you pointed to. So much for "Irrelevant". And then even without any argument at all to support it. This is getting rather funny. Just claims, no arguments.

You know why "That's just the way we do it/that's just the way it works" is so common when a foreign language speaker is trying to learn a new language? It's literally because "that's just the way it works". In language convention trumps logic almost all the time. I don't know what kind of argument I could present for EXPERIENTAL knowledge.

And, let's just see Mountain Mans posts again:



Just the day before that, he wrote:



And, remember, the first statement was one Mountain Man claimed was a general statement, based on experience. If that is true, did he make a statement contradicting his "knowledge" on purpose just the day before the first statement? I don't feel to certain we will get an answer. It is more likely that some will make statements about how points about how language actually works are "irrelevant".

You're the one making the claim that it's a general statement, not MM. And the fact that MM amen'd my posts is a pretty strong indicator that my interpretation of what he said is the correct one.

Lastly, you obviously do not know how "language actually works". The only way you can interpret MM's statements the way you do is if you thinks language is a purely analytical and lifeless endeavour devoid of any conventions such as rhetoric and hyperbole.

[Charles]

You know why "That's just the way we do it/that's just the way it works" is so common when a foreign language speaker is trying to learn a new language? It's literally because "that's just the way it works". In language convention trumps logic almost all the time. I don't know what kind of argument I could present for EXPERIENTAL knowledge.



You're the one making the claim that it's a general statement, not MM. And the fact that MM amen'd my posts is a pretty strong indicator that my interpretation if what he said is the correct one.

Lastly, you obviously do not know how "language actually works". The only way you can interpret MM's statements the way you do is if you thinks language is a purely analytical and lifeless endeavour devoid of any conventions such as rhetoric and hyperbole.

What you are desperately trying to escape here is the very simple fact that context is important (not a point you guys are scared of in theologocial discussions at all). There is nothing in this discussion, in this very thread to suggest we are talking in anything but the very same context. Your statements about "rhetoric" and "hyperbole" are just general statements that are basic knowledge to anyone. They do not show or prove anything in this context at all. It is just you playing smart talking about concepts and uses of language without showing at all how it applies in this very context (because it does not). And that is the interesting part in all of this. First MM makes an obvious contradiction and then you rush with all sorts of different means (including finding context irrelevant!) to try to pave his way out of the mess he created by trying to pave his way out of my points.

MM is actually making general statements in this very thread about skeptics. He does not use statements like "most" or "some". It is not my fault that he did so.

[JonathanL]

What you are desperately trying to escape here is the very simple fact that context is important (not a point you guys are scared of in theologocial discussions at all). There is nothing in this discussion, in this very thread to suggest we are talking in anything but the very same context. Your statements about "rhetoric" and "hyperbole" are just general statements that are basic knowledge to anyone. They do not show or prove anything in this context at all. It is just you playing smart talking about concepts and uses of language without showing at all how it applies in this very context (because it does not). And that is the interesting part in all of this. First MM makes an obvious contradiction and then you rush with all sorts of different means (including finding context irrelevant!) to try to pave his way out of the mess he created by trying to pave his way out of my points.

MM is actually making general statements in this very thread about skeptics. He does not use statements like "most" or "some". It is not my fault that he did so.

The kind of statements MM made are seldom meant to be general and/or exhaustive in everyday speak. Ask anyone who blurts out something similar to what MM wrote like "group X believe Y" if they really believe that every member of group X really believes Y and most of the time they'll reply with "No, I don't literally believe everyone in group X believes Y". It's such a commonplace occurence that anyone who tries to interpret the statements in a general/exhaustive sense exposes their own ignorance of how language works in doing so.

In other words, it's not up to me to show how my points apply at all, it's up to you to show how your woodenly literal interpretation applies when it flies in the face of the
vast majority of conventional language usage.

[Charles]

The kind of statements MM made are seldom meant to be general and/or exhaustive in everyday speak. Ask anyone who blurts out something similar to what MM wrote like "group X believe Y" if they really believe that every member of group X really believes Y and most of the time they'll reply with "No, I don't literally believe everyone in group X believes Y". It's such a commonplace occurence that anyone who tries to interpret the statements in a general/exhaustive sense exposes their own ignorance of how language works in doing so.

In other words, it's not up to me to show how my points apply at all, it's up to you to show how your woodenly literal interpretation applies when it flies in the face of the
vast majority of conventional language usage.

So, if you don't want to show how your points apply that is your choice. I simply point out that Mountain Man obviously contradicted himself. There is no reason at all, looking at the context you like to ignore, to assume he is talking about different groups of skeptics. Based on his first statements, I go along and challenge his statements about what "skeptics" believe. Along the lines of that, with no suggesting they think along different lines, with no regard to the idea that the don't all think the same, with no qualifiers at all he ends up contradicting himself.

Your revisionist history is an attempt to make it my fault that MM does not use qualifiers, does nothing to acknowlede that such groups as "Chrisitans", "skeptics" and the like are rather complex groups containing all sorts of views.

One should be aware of those distinctions. I am and you are. Mountain Man forget them and often does. He has got to own his contradictions based on what he actually said. That you and I know better is not his excuse. And in this very context, there simply is no excuse. And I do note that you were unwilling to even try to show how your method would excuse him while I have already pointed to the contradiction.

[JonathanL]

So, if you don't want to show how your points apply that is your choice. I simply point out that Mountain Man obviously contradicted himself. There is no reason at all, looking at the context you like to ignore, to assume he is talking about different groups of skeptics. Based on his first statements, I go along and challenge his statements about what "skeptics" believe. Along the lines of that, with no suggesting they think along different lines, with no regard to the idea that the don't all think the same, with no qualifiers at all he ends up contradicting himself.

Your revisionist history is an attempt to make it my fault that MM does not use qualifiers, does nothing to acknowlede that such groups as "Chrisitans", "skeptics" and the like are rather complex groups containing all sorts of views.

One should be aware of those distinctions. I am and you are. Mountain Man forget them and often does. He has got to own his contradictions based on what he actually said. That you and I know better is not his excuse. And in this very context, there simply is no excuse. And I do note that you were unwilling to even try to show how your method would excuse him while I have already pointed to the contradiction.

There is nothing "revisionist" at all in pointing out that the kind of statements MM made in this thread are often meant in a non-exhaustive sense. Your interpretation of his words, being the non-conventional one, is the one that needs to be argued for.

[Charles]

There is nothing "revisionist" at all in pointing out that the kind of statements MM made in this thread are often meant in a non-exhaustive sense. Your interpretation of his words, being the non-conventional one, is the one that needs to be argued for.

It is, indeed, revisionist. You are talking about this statement:

Nah, in my experience, skeptics have never believed that Christians really believe the Bible. In their minds, we all secretly agree with them that it's simply too ridiculous to take seriously, but that we consciously ignore the irrationality of it because we prefer a comforting lie to the truth.

As we can clearly see, the talk is about "skeptics" not some of most of them. It is simply about "skeptics". And he goes on along those lines in the use of a word like "never" instead of "seldom" or the like. So, once again, no attempt to even try to suggest others would think differently. And it goes on in statements like "In their mind". No talk about "most of their minds" or anything like that.

So, he has got to own hist broad brush statements. For some reason, in this particular context, you want to excuse or write revisionist history about a general statement.

And to repeat. Here is what MM said the day before:

[...]
Skeptics before President Trump: "Christians are morons for believing the Bible."

Skeptics after President Trump: "Christians are morons for believing the Bible."

What's really changed?

So, here he is making a statement that he is going to claim, just one day later, that he has no experience with at all. If you want all that to add up you should not be an expert on language but rather an expert on revisionist history, sophistications, spin and the like.

I am still having quite a lot of fun about the fact that MM so obviously contradicted himself.

[JonathanL]

It is, indeed, revisionist. You are talking about this statement:



As we can clearly see, the talk is about "skeptics" not some of most of them. It is simply about "skeptics". And he goes on along those lines in the use of a word like "never" instead of "seldom" or the like. So, once again, no attempt to even try to suggest others would think differently. And it goes on in statements like "In their mind". No talk about "most of their minds" or anything like that.

So, he has got to own hist broad brush statements. For some reason, in this particular context, you want to excuse or write revisionist history about a general statement.

And to repeat. Here is what MM said the day before:



So, here he is making a statement that he is going to claim, just one day later, that he has no experience with at all. If you want all that to add up you should not be an expert on language but rather an expert on revisionist history, sophistications, spin and the like.

I am still having quite a lot of fun about the fact that MM so obviously contradicted himself.

The fact of the matter is that the type of statements MM made above are seldom meant in a general and/or exhaustive sense and most people, unless they're ignorant about common language conventions, or have some sort of hidden agenda, realize that when they read statements like that, and so do not force a woodenly literal interpretation on them, like you're doing. Most people recognize the fact that statements like these are not often meant to be taken exhaustively, without needing any qualifiers like "most", "seldom" or "some" to clear up the confusion for them.

[Charles]

The fact of the matter is that the type of statements MM made above are seldom meant in a general and/or exhaustive sense and most people, unless they're ignorant about common language conventions, or have some sort of hidden agenda, realize that when they read statements like that, and so do not force a woodenly literal interpretation on them, like you're doing. Most people recognize the fact that statements like these are not often meant to be taken exhaustively, without needing any qualifiers like "most", "seldom" or "some" to clear up the confusion for them.

I am sure you will say the same the next time someone makes a broad brust statement about Christians in general.

And I note that when I Mountain Man makes statements about skeptics "Never" doing something I am ignorant for supposing he means "never" instead of "seldom". A word he could have used. And I am ignorant to hold him accountable for not making any distinctions. When he does not make those, I should make them for him. I should translate his language into a balanced language with distinctions he is seemingly unable to make himself.

But, again, I assume you will think differently when the same sort of statements are made about Christians (in general). Like Christians support Trump, Christians are hypocrites, Christians support Trump and the like.

[JonathanL]

I am sure you will say the same the next time someone makes a broad brust statement about Christians in general.

Unless they give me reason to believe otherwise, sure. Or at least that's how I'll understand their statements, I won't necessarily comment on it.

And I note that when I Mountain Man makes statements about skeptics "Never" doing something I am ignorant for supposing he means "never" instead of "seldom". A word he could have used. And I am ignorant to hold him accountable for not making any distinctions. When he does not make those, I should make them for him. I should translate his language into a balanced language with distinctions he is seemingly unable to make himself.

And I note that when you're clearly shown to be ignorant in how language actually works (using your own phrase against you) you resort to strawmanning and trying to look your opponent's argument look ridiculous by claiming I stated something I never did. You won't find a single statement where I came even remotely close to claiming that you're ignorant for thinking MM means "seldom" when he says "never".

But, again, I assume you will think differently when the same sort of statements are made about Christians (in general). Like Christians support Trump, Christians are hypocrites, Christians support Trump and the like.

As I said above, unless they give me reason to believe otherwise I'll try to be just as charitable in my interpretation of their statements as I am in my interpretation of MM's.

[Charles]

[...]
And I note that when you're clearly shown to be ignorant in how language actually works (using your own phrase against you) you resort to strawmanning and trying to look your opponent's argument look ridiculous by claiming I stated something I never did. You won't find a single statement where I came even remotely close to claiming that you're ignorant for thinking MM means "seldom" when he says "never".

Of course you did (though you got "seldom" and "never" the wrong way around ). When I had just talked about that, your comment was:

The fact of the matter is that the type of statements MM made above are seldom meant in a general and/or exhaustive sense and most people, unless they're ignorant about common language conventions, or have some sort of hidden agenda, realize that when they read statements like that, and so do not force a woodenly literal interpretation on them, like you're doing. Most people recognize the fact that statements like these are not often meant to be taken exhaustively, without needing any qualifiers like "most", "seldom" or "some" to clear up the confusion for them.

Now, don't go create a revisionist history about your own statements while writing revisionist history about what Mountain Man said.

As I said above, unless they give me reason to believe otherwise I'll try to be just as charitable in my interpretation of their statements as I am in my interpretation of MM's.

So, be charitable. Here we have got two statements:

Nah, in my experience, skeptics have never believed that Christians really believe the Bible. In their minds, we all secretly agree with them that it's simply too ridiculous to take seriously, but that we consciously ignore the irrationality of it because we prefer a comforting lie to the truth.

[...]

Skeptics before President Trump: "Christians are morons for believing the Bible."

Skeptics after President Trump: "Christians are morons for believing the Bible."

What's really changed?

So, provide an explanation of what is being said in the first statement

1)

and an explanation of what is being said in the second statement:

2)

And then check if 1 and 2 don't contradict each other or the statements they are meant to explain. Or if they do so explain why that is fair.

Let me see if you can do it or if you just want to make general statements that do not really explain the situation at all.

[JonathanL]

Of course you did (though you got "seldom" and "never" the wrong way around ). When I had just talked about that, your comment was:




Now, don't go create a revisionist history about your own statements while writing revisionist history about what Mountain Man said.

That paragraph doesn't even say what you think it says even under a woodenly literal paradigm.

The fact of the matter is that the type of statements MM made above are seldom meant in a general and/or exhaustive sense and most people, unless they're ignorant about common language conventions, or have some sort of hidden agenda, realize that when they read statements like that, and so do not force a woodenly literal interpretation on them, like you're doing. Most people recognize the fact that statements like these are not often meant to be taken exhaustively, without needing any qualifiers like "most", "seldom" or "some" to clear up the confusion for them.

So the first "seldom" here (in bold), is clearly a qualifier to "meant in a general and/or exhaustive sense", and applies to "the type of statements MM made", and is not intended to be read as me claiming that MM really means "seldom" when he writes "never".

The other place it shows up, in the last sentence, it's clearly me giving generalized examples of qualifiers and can in no way, shape or form be construed as me claiming anything particular at all regarding the specific qualifiers we have in MM's posts.

And yes, you're right about me getting "seldom" and "never" the wrong way around. Or, to be more precise, I should have said that you won't find me claiming anywhere that you're ignorant for not thinking MM means "seldom" when he says "never".

So, be charitable. Here we have got two statements:





So, provide an explanation of what is being said in the first statement

1)

and an explanation of what is being said in the second statement:

2)

And then check if 1 and 2 don't contradict each other or the statements they are meant to explain. Or if they do so explain why that is fair.

Let me see if you can do it or if you just want to make general statements that do not really explain the situation at all.

I'll do you one better. I'll give you an example where I interpret "skeptics" in the exact same way in both statements and still arrive at a set of perfectly consistent, contradiction-free interpretations of both statements.

Nah, in my experience, skeptics (a great deal, but certainly not all, of them) have never believed that Christians really believe the Bible. In their minds, we all secretly agree with them that it's simply too ridiculous to take seriously, but that we consciously ignore the irrationality of it because we prefer a comforting lie to the truth.

Skeptics (a great deal, but certainly not all, of them) before President Trump: "Christians are morons for believing the Bible."

Skeptics (a great deal, but certainly not all, of them) after President Trump: "Christians are morons for believing the Bible."

[Charles]

That paragraph doesn't even say what you think it says even under a woodenly literal paradigm.

The fact of the matter is that the type of statements MM made above are seldom meant in a general and/or exhaustive sense and most people, unless they're ignorant about common language conventions, or have some sort of hidden agenda, realize that when they read statements like that, and so do not force a woodenly literal interpretation on them, like you're doing. Most people recognize the fact that statements like these are not often meant to be taken exhaustively, without needing any qualifiers like "most", "seldom" or "some" to clear up the confusion for them.

So the first "seldom" here (in bold), is clearly a qualifier to "meant in a general and/or exhaustive sense", and applies to "the type of statements MM made", and is not intended to be read as me claiming that MM really means "seldom" when he writes "never".

The other place it shows up, in the last sentence, it's clearly me giving generalized examples of qualifiers and can in no way, shape or form be construed as me claiming anything particular at all regarding the specific qualifiers we have in MM's posts.

And yes, you're right about me getting "seldom" and "never" the wrong way around. Or, to be more precise, I should have said that you won't find me claiming anywhere that you're ignorant for not thinking MM means "seldom" when he says "never".

It was and remains the context the statement was made in. If it only adresses other qualifiers, you could have made that clear. I used it as en example. Many other examples could have been made.

I'll do you one better. I'll give you an example where I interpret "skeptics" in the exact same way in both statements and still arrive at a set of perfectly consistent, contradiction-free interpretations of both statements.

Nah, in my experience, skeptics (a great deal, but certainly not all, of them) have never believed that Christians really believe the Bible. In their minds, we all secretly agree with them that it's simply too ridiculous to take seriously, but that we consciously ignore the irrationality of it because we prefer a comforting lie to the truth.

Skeptics (a great deal, but certainly not all, of them) before President Trump: "Christians are morons for believing the Bible."

Skeptics (a great deal, but certainly not all, of them) after President Trump: "Christians are morons for believing the Bible."

So, lets just apply some very simple logic here. In both statements you put in (a great deal, but certainly not all, of them). That is not in the text but it is how you interpret it and you claim to remove contradiction by doing so.

At face value, they contradict each other and your statement (a great deal, but certainly not all, of them) seems to remove this problem at first. However, one wonders, what is meant by (a great deal, but certainly not all, of them). Is it more or less than 50 %? Remember, the first statement is based on Mountain Man's experience with this area. A great deal would have to be most, if the broad brush statement is to be justified. d

It leaves a lot of questions to be answered:

1) If his statement is "certainly" not about all, why is he not using a single word to indicate that? And call me naive but he had some many chances.
2) Why is statement 2 made in such a way that it makes a broad brush statemens about something he will leave out of his description of his own experience the next day?

So, if you interpret skeptics in the exact same way in both statements, it seems something interesting arises. We are taking about one group interpreted in the same way and it goes for this group that.

1) A great deal have never believed Christians believe the Bible
2) A great deal believe Christians believe the Bible

How great are those "great deals"? 50 % at most if you are interpreting "skeptics" in the exact same way and taking into account that we are talking about a particular group, namely the skeptics Mountain Man know about.

So, at first, you avoid contradiction, however, at a closer look you will find trouble explaining the concept of "great deal" and why such broad brush statements were made when it cannot be such great deals. I would acknowledge that the lack of use of qualifiers could be justified in case where we are very close to 100 %. In situations where we are talking much less, they wont work at all. And this is the trouble in this case. If you want to remove the contradiction by claiming qualifiers are there if you read it charitable, you will have a great deal of problems reading it charitable enough to justify the lack of qualifiers as the "numbers" are so low.

So, "one better"? I am afraid I don't think so. Look: you can twist and turn all you like but there is really no way out of this mess. It is caused by the lack of use of qualifiers and, seemingly, a twist of "experience" to better fit a particular situation. It is like many of Trump's statements about what he has said and why. We have got it on record. He cannot escape it and he is just going to make even more fool statements trying to escape the fool statements he had already made.