"Original Sin"....Just Another term for our animal nature?

[Au Naturel]

Lotta talk, no money. Why don’t we stick with facts?

Anti-Christian violence is not a straw man, friend. Let’s also try to avoid the word-ownership speed trap, where one side tries to dictate to the other side which sense of a word may or may not be used. (Recently a Christian poster was treated to what I would call a ‘violent dislike’ for using the word ‘fact’: she was told she may not use that word because she was a Christian and all Christians have is faith. I myself recently chose a word in defense of my spiritual investigations, and was sternly admonished that Science Herself had already claimed that word and I therefore could not use that word in reference to myself.)

Now, my dictionary allows for the special usage of the word ‘violent’ as in ‘violent dislike’. If you reject this usage, then I will stand on my statement on the grounds it was intended: the world, at large, often has a violent reaction to the telling of the Gospel.

My point…
You dismissed a valid argument by calling it a straw man and objecting to my legitimate use of the word violent, plus some procedural objections of no consequence to the discussion. So, back to the point.

Are you saying that you are unaware of violent bias against Christianity in general, historically, or as a current in our conversations? Because I couldn’t really understand your response to that point, even though that is the point you attacked.

I’m old: humor me.
Would you agree that, as a distinct subgroup, Christians are afforded the same protections and respect afforded the many other subgroups? IF NOT, how do you account for the disparity?

Violent can be used as a synonym for extreme. It just isn't the first definition that comes to mind.

I disagree with the notion that the general public "violently" reacts to hearing religious commentary. Most people just aren't interested, some are, and some have a different religious perspective. Liberal progressives are the most likely to strongly object and they are far from the majority of the population.

If you push it, you annoy people. The most annoying are overeager religious proselytizers who haven't learned a low-key approach to spreading the word. Free speech does not include any promise that anyone will listen.

 

[Hypnalis]

@The Pandector

You don't get to decide what "equivocation" means, nor that it's use is frequently (almost always) a fallacy.,
These are not matters of belief.

Nor do you get to claim that you're the target of bias here without evidence. If you make a claim, you have to provide the evidence to support the claim. No evidence means the claim is not valid.

I never claimed an anti-Christian bias exists in this forum, (or elsewhere). If you have some evidence of either one I'd check it out, but I won't look for it otherwise. Regarding the forum - I've been assuming it's against the TOS to be "anti-Christian",

So this makes no sense:

Either you perceive an anti-Christian bias or you do not. If so, I asked to what you attribute this.

Please clarify. With actual evidence (a quote and an easy way for me to find the specific post) if you're claiming I said such a thing.

Here's my evidence (from your post # 190 in this thread)
(There's more in the same post BTW, but you wrote it so you already know that).

Are you saying that you are unaware of violent bias against Christianity in general, historically, or as a current in our conversations? Because I couldn’t really understand your response to that point, even though that is the point you attacked.

I’m old: humor me.
Would you agree that, as a distinct subgroup, Christians are afforded the same protections and respect afforded the many other subgroups? IF NOT, how do you account for the disparity?

i.e. you claimed there's a bias, and I asked for evidence. I'm still waiting.

In the meantinme, in the absence of evidence I'm treating these as susupported claims.

 

[jsilver256]

Linguistic recursion is quite real. In a sense, you could say it is a less structured form of recursion in computer science in the sense that it involves generating infinite semantic units via nesting.

Let's use another example:

An animal might have calls / cries that correspond to "RUN! DANGER!"

The thing is, human equivalents of "Grok see tiger! Grok run!" can be disassembled and constructed in an infinite number of ways.

Grok see tiger!
Tiger see Grok!
Grok run!
Tiger run!
Tiger see Grok run!
Grok run Tiger run!

etc...

Universal grammar / wetware is just Chomsky's hypothesis for how linguistic recursion came to be, I am not asserting it exists. But I am asserting a large, real gap exists in how animals communicate and how humans communicate that has no known intermediate.

Linguistic recursion is closely linked to the notion of how reasoning is expressed in general, so it is much more than just a mode of how humans communicate. It is what enables Logos in us, you might say. Think of it - would writing code utilizing computing recursion even be possible without first having humans express themselves with linguistic recursion?

 

[Hypnalis]

@jsilver256

Thanks for the link.

It's just about syntax though: a property that's needed to allow certain kinds of statements to be made. But while certain aspects of syntax may well be necessary, I strongly doubt it's a defining characteristic for the huge difference in semantic complexity between humans and animals.

FWIW from a syntax perspective, this use of recursion is quite like the computing one. The IT guys might even have borrowed it from the linguists. Back in the 80's IT people were still very interested in details of syntax that nobody cares about these days.

Anyway syntax is interesting, but IMO more of an effect than a cause (an emergent property). As I see it, language has to be able to convey what people want to say. So if there's a shared concept worth communicating, you'd expect a word to be developed for it. And syntax to be developed to support the words (e.g. human: "Look, a Smilodon quite far away in that direction. Stop and hide. Maybe we can avoid it. - Meerkat "danger from above".

But is it the idea that drives the process, or the syntactical capability? I'd go with the semantics, which in some way reflects the conceptual abilities of the human brain.

That doesn't exclude languages from having a set of common elements that reflect the language wetware though.
But there's a chicken/egg situation that AFAIK is still unresolved.
(OFC eggs came first - it's some to retire that metaphor

BTW: the lack of an observable intermediate state in animals isn't strange. We're apes, and all the intermediate forms died out (perhaps with "active assistance" from homo sapiens).

Maybe intelligence and language could evolve again, but large-brained apes go back only 1.5 million years or so (I forget the exact numbers, but there were two distinct changes towards much larger brains, and IIRC the first was less than 2 million years ago,

Anyway the lack of intermediate states isn't so strange. Inconvenient for language researchers though

 

[Au Naturel]

Recursion would spontaneously occur in language development.

The evolution of human language didn't happen in one jump. The "only humans would use recursion" argument is an assertion, not a proven statement. Do you have evidence that Neanderthals didn't use recursion? Or Homo erectus? What if early Paleolithic humans didn't use recursion? Would they suddenly be not human?

 

[The Pandector]

@The Pandector

You don't get to decide what "equivocation" means, nor that it's use is frequently (almost always) a fallacy.,
These are not matters of belief.

Nor do you get to claim that you're the target of bias here without evidence. If you make a claim, you have to provide the evidence to support the claim. No evidence means the claim is not valid.

I never claimed an anti-Christian bias exists in this forum, (or elsewhere). If you have some evidence of either one I'd check it out, but I won't look for it otherwise. Regarding the forum - I've been assuming it's against the TOS to be "anti-Christian",

So this makes no sense:


Please clarify. With actual evidence (a quote and an easy way for me to find the specific post) if you're claiming I said such a thing.

Here's my evidence (from your post # 190 in this thread)
(There's more in the same post BTW, but you wrote it so you already know that).



i.e. you claimed there's a bias, and I asked for evidence. I'm still waiting.

In the meantinme, in the absence of evidence I'm treating these as susupported claims.

You missed my point. My use of the word violent was a legitimate usage. To brand it as equivocation is ridiculous, as it clearly implies it was a slippery debate tactic when in fact your response is another diversion tactic. I had no intention of subtly switching the intent of my words, which would be the situation where you would want to accuse the other of equivocation. Further, you have no reason to suspect I did so. The diversion is tiring.

But, you got to the point, finally, and missed it completely. You seem exercised over having been accused by me of anti-Christian bias. Believe Me …. I know what it’s like to be publicly accused of certain thoughts and beliefs, when the accusations are not at all true. Kinda burns your buns, apparently; yeah, I’m the same way. I think we’re bonding here.

However, I don’t believe I ever accused you of anti-Christian bias. Neither did I say that I was the target of bias. I remember suggesting it would be healthy to discuss If There Were such a bias. Likewise, I never suggested you had suggested a bias exists. What I did was ask questions about how You felt on the issue. I don’t need to get involved with the other emotional baggage.

If you could provide a post of mine leveling such accusations … otherwise, I’ll just excuse it as a sensitive subject for you. Still, you have said you’d look into any evidence of bias I presented, but haven’t answered the question about whether You perceive such a bias. After a while, it starts to feel like you’re avoiding answering the question.

 

[jsilver256]

Recursion would spontaneously occur in language development.

The evolution of human language didn't happen in one jump. The "only humans would use recursion" argument is an assertion, not a proven statement. Do you have evidence that Neanderthals didn't use recursion? Or Homo erectus? What if early Paleolithic humans didn't use recursion? Would they suddenly be not human?

I do not have evidence for that. But I do think it is interesting that urban civilization, writing systems, and identical ancestor points have overlaps time range wise.

 

[Hypnalis]

@The Pandector

You're reading too much into what I said and what interests me about this.

You made an unsupported claim that there's an anti-Christian bias, and I checked you.

I don't care if you actually believe that, nor if it was directed at me or you were broadcasting a general complaint.
I want you to stop involving me in it.
Randomly bringing it up in a post like #190, that starts with a quote from me, is going too far.

As for the other - your use of "violent" as written was definitely the equivocation fallacy. That exact working in a different context would not be. But that's the nature of the fallacy, and why it works on unprepared people..

Some honest advice: don't use techniques like that with me. Or in a thread I'm likely to read, like this one.

If you don't agree with something I say, just say so. Or disengage. Either way it won't upset me.

 

[The Pandector]

@Hypnalis ,
You suggested that I made an unsupported claim of a bias on this board, mentioning post #190. Please reread that post. What I did, again, is to ask if that’s what You were trying to say, because your response was a bit garbled. That is significantly different than asserting that something is so. I suggest you read carefully before attributing something to someone; because that IS a problem I’ve seen around here in the past.

In fact, that improvement alone would please me quite a bit. I get all calm just thinking about it. Thanks for working with me.

 

[The Pandector]

@The Pandector

You're reading too much into what I said and what interests me about this.

You made an unsupported claim that there's an anti-Christian bias, and I checked you.

I don't care if you actually believe that, nor if it was directed at me or you were broadcasting a general complaint.
I want you to stop involving me in it.
Randomly bringing it up in a post like #190, that starts with a quote from me, is going too far.

As for the other - your use of "violent" as written was definitely the equivocation fallacy. That exact working in a different context would not be. But that's the nature of the fallacy, and why it works on unprepared people..

Some honest advice: don't use techniques like that with me. Or in a thread I'm likely to read, like this one.

If you don't agree with something I say, just say so. Or disengage. Either way it won't upset me.

@Hypnalis said:
“your use of “violent’ as written was definitely the equivocation fallacy. That exact working[sp?] in a different context would not be. But that the nature of the fallacy, and why it works on unprepared people…. Some honest advice: don’t use techniques like that with me. Or in a thread I’m likely to read, like this one.”
Previously, @Hypnalis said:
"You don’t get to decide what “equivocation” means, not that its use is frequently (almost always) a fallacy.”

Remember I commented earlier about the tendency to dictate rules, to dictate which sense of a word may be used, etc.? It seems to be much in evidence here. Are you aware that the Wikipedia definition you insist I abide by is not the common use, but another special use (as with the ‘fact’ fiasco I ironed out some days earlier)? Let me use an established source or two.

“a way of behaving or speaking that is not clear or definite and is intended to avoid or hide the truth.” That’s the Oxford definition. Please note the inclusion of the word, ‘and’.

“deliberate evasiveness in wording : the use of ambiguous or equivocal language an ambiguous or deliberately evasive statement.” That’s the Mirriam-Webster definition. Note the repeated use of the word ‘deliberate’.

These two common-usage definitions both clearly provide that ‘equivocation’ includes intent, a finery you seem unwilling to make room for. Either that, or “Some honest advice: don’t use techniques like that with me” is a phrase I should parse as an accusation of lying, since I have repeatedly said I had no such intent. Not only that, there is no reason to suspect I had surreptitious intent other than the fact that your vocabulary failed you on first read. Now you know there is another use for the word ‘violent’. Just mail the check.

An observation, @Hypnalis. You seem very intent on winning. Rather than just having a conversation here in this conversation forum, you throw out rules like a first-year debate judge. This. I suspect, is why you seem so certain that I’m employing devious debate tactics. It seems entirely possible that you live in that place; I do not.

Let me inform you of my training, friend. In 8th grade, I smoked the competition in both speech and debate. Returning to the squad in 9th grade, my coach bucked an intransigent high school coach to allow me to compete that year with the high schoolers; he went straight to the NFL to get the approval. He told me it wasn’t helping me to win all the time.

By the time I graduated to high school, I had burned out on debate. With each official topic, I could see there were clearly winning and losing sides, based on simple truth. But the NFL doesn’t operate that way; you have to be willing to argue both sides. I was no longer willing to argue in favor of a proposition I opposed; that was not the sort of training I was going to submit to. This is not the history of someone who resorts to cheesy little debate tricks when my position is weak. But I have run into any number of lawyerly types who made lots more money than I ever did, simply because they were willing to lie when told. But, you’re hitching that sled to the wrong dog, son.

 

[The Pandector]

Violent can be used as a synonym for extreme. It just isn't the first definition that comes to mind.

I disagree with the notion that the general public "violently" reacts to hearing religious commentary. Most people just aren't interested, some are, and some have a different religious perspective. Liberal progressives are the most likely to strongly object and they are far from the majority of the population.

If you push it, you annoy people. The most annoying are overeager religious proselytizers who haven't learned a low-key approach to spreading the word. Free speech does not include any promise that anyone will listen.

You’re right. I agree that the general public does not disagree violently when presented with the gospel. I would say that, if you present the gospel publicly, you will receive emotionally violent responses.

Interesting how you provide a blueprint for the eager evangelist, culminating in that socially acceptable low key approach you mention. I know you know, but it bears saying. Paul was beaten, rejected, jailed multiple times; Jesus they murdered outright. These things are not the result of low key evangelism.

I feel there is a place for that type of approach, and it is preferable when possible. Jesus and Paul didn’t get in people’s faces, they just told the truth. However, each of them rose up in defense of the faith when necessary. This was so often necessary because telling spiritual truth tends to cause emotionally violent responses from some people. This is not because Jesus and Paul had failed to learn a more mature evangelical approach, but because the telling of the truth often elicits emotionally violent responses.

As you know, the Bible expresses this as the flesh and the spirit being in perpetual enmity. Which is why I feel this relates to the thread: until you can get your head around this spiritual dynamic, the battle in the heavenlies will never make any sense to you.

I get a kick that it was Mick Jagger that quotes Satan as telling man that, “what’s puzzling you is just the nature of my game”. If even Mick understands it, it must be available to the unenlightened mind.

 

[Magna]

I would say that, if you present the gospel publicly, you will receive emotionally violent responses.

A true Christian signs up for this, no?

1. Matthew 5:11-12: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
2. Luke 6:22-23: "Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets."
3. Acts 5:41: "The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name."
4. 1 Peter 4:12-14: "Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you."

I'm always confused when Christians seemingly whinge about facing adversity, rejection, animosity, criticism, scrutiny, etc for professing or preaching Christianity. I'm stating my confusion with this genuinely.

 

[The Pandector]

A true Christian signs up for this, no?

1. Matthew 5:11-12: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
2. Luke 6:22-23: "Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets."
3. Acts 5:41: "The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name."
4. 1 Peter 4:12-14: "Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you."

I'm always confused when Christians seemingly whinge about facing adversity, rejection, animosity, criticism, scrutiny, etc for professing or preaching Christianity. I'm stating my confusion with this genuinely.

Yes, I owe you an answer, put it off until things settled.

You are perfectly correct in what you say. Christians can and should expect to be abused in this world. Again, the spirit/flesh animosity. We can even find joy in this, because if we suffer for the name of Jesus we know we’re on the right path (not to include suffering for your own blunders). That does not mean that we enjoy the suffering, does not mean we should seek to suffer.

IOW, I believe suffering is important to spiritual growth, but this doesn’t imply a belief that we should seek to suffer continuously. I’m just not a bed of nails kind of guy, don’t believe the Bible supports asceticism.

If my neighbor hates me for my religion and comes over and punches me, I can rejoice that I’ve suffered for Christ’s name, but I may very well seek a restraining order. If he comes over and punches my wife, we can rejoice later; I will immediately convince him of his folly. If you want to discuss Scripture relating to that scenario, fine, but I don’t think that’s what we’re after.

Another critical part of a Christian’s growth diet is sound Biblical doctrine. Like junk food can destroy an otherwise healthy food diet, junk doctrine can seriously damage spiritual health. That being a verifiable spiritual fact, some Christians will just naturally be sensitive to communal dietary habits. (Or, in Biblical language, some Christians are assigned to the task by the Spirit.)

When a friend comes by and loads your kid down with sugar treats, it may pass. But if it becomes a weekly pattern, you either moderate or end the practice. God assigned you that responsibility; you don’t ask unbelievers for permission or guidance. That would be like tailoring your preaching to please the world. If you discuss the health ramifications with your friend and he rolls his eyes and sneaks the candy to them… then you have a situation where you have to consider defensive measures.

Now, fact is, the people around here are not my worldly family. But then, I don’t usually take an active role in feeding them, either. You may have noticed I am not an evangelist. But, when I see bogus doctrine on the table, I try to lay the healthy food next to the junk food, and hope people make healthy choices. It’s a small and unimportant role, that’s true; certainly nothing to be proud of. But that doesn’t mean I can’t take pride in it.

To answer your question, I have not been whinging, I have been contending for the faith. Of course there are doctrinal differences and disputes; part of the landscape. But when wild assertions are made that are clearly bogus, when damaging claims about the Christian faith or Bible are tossed around like papal bulls, and, when Christians are bullied for their beliefs, I call foul.

If I were griping because I were offended or because the misinformation were hurting me, your comments would be appropriate. In fact, I have no problem identifying the flies in the raisin oatmeal. I don’t understand any of the verses you quoted to say that, as part of our patient suffering, we should let them rewrite the Bible.

(I appreciate the sincere approach; thank you.)

 

[Au Naturel]

Paul was beaten, rejected, jailed multiple times; Jesus they murdered outright. These things are not the result of low key evangelism.

We aren't Rome. We're not even Russia. Not by a long shot.

You're free to believe any religion you want here. You're free to say what you want with extremely limited exceptions. Religion has to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and it also has to comport with secular laws. Any given religion has to peacefully coexist with every other religion - or lack of religion - that also comports with secular law, regardless of whatever happens to be the local majority faith. Government is forbidden from playing favorites.

From a practical perspective, if you want to ring my doorbell and ask to proselytize to me, that's fine. If I say "No thanks." and you don't graciously exit the premis, expect to have the door unceremoniously closed in your face. Try to obstruct that door and we have a problem. However, you won't be crucified or beheaded.

A few extremely paranoid people might shoot you.

 

[Au Naturel]

I do not have evidence for that. But I do think it is interesting that urban civilization, writing systems, and identical ancestor points have overlaps time range wise.

Watching my children and my grandchild growing up it appears to me that recursion is just a trick one learns. Maybe people can figure it out on their own or maybe they just pick it up seeing it done. Kind of like one learns to count but then addition is a trick you pick up to be able to do more. Then most (but not all) of us pick up multiplication, then division.

I don't know if it counts as "recursion," but the gorilla Koko became pretty adept at sign language and communication. Who knows about what our direct ancestors got up to over a few million years?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)
"Patterson reported that Koko made several complex uses of signs that suggested a more developed degree of cognition than is usually attributed to non-human primates and their use of communication; for example, Koko was reported to use displacement (the ability to communicate about objects that are not currently present).[29] At age 19, Koko was able to pass the mirror test of self-recognition, which most other gorillas fail.[30][31] She had been reported to relay personal memories.[32] Koko was reported to use meta-language, being able to use language reflexively to speak about language itself, signing "good sign" to another gorilla who successfully used signing.[33] Koko was reported to use language deceptively, and to use counterfactual statements for humorous effects, suggesting an underlying theory of other minds.[34]"

 

[The Pandector]

We aren't Rome. We're not even Russia. Not by a long shot.

You're free to believe any religion you want here. You're free to say what you want with extremely limited exceptions. Religion has to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and it also has to comport with secular laws. Any given religion has to peacefully coexist with every other religion - or lack of religion - that also comports with secular law, regardless of whatever happens to be the local majority faith. Government is forbidden from playing favorites.

From a practical perspective, if you want to ring my doorbell and ask to proselytize to me, that's fine. If I say "No thanks." and you don't graciously exit the premis, expect to have the door unceremoniously closed in your face. Try to obstruct that door and we have a problem. However, you won't be crucified or beheaded.

A few extremely paranoid people might shoot you.

Keep your eyes open.

 

[Hypnalis]

I do not have evidence for that. But I do think it is interesting that urban civilization, writing systems, and identical ancestor points have overlaps time range wise.

Learning to live in large groups (civilization) changed "everything".

We think of the benefits of complexity and a massive economic surplus as normal.
But when civilization was starting out, in each separate location, the possibilities for specialization, manufacturing at scale, and technological development were revolutionary.

A functioning city of 50 000 people can do things that are both irrelevant and impossible for a group of hunter-gatherers. And the rate of change is vastly greater. Hunter-gatherers are as intelligent as the rest of us, but they innovate very slowly.

Those points in common are probably a natural effect of scaling up.

 

[Au Naturel]

Learning to live in large groups (civilization) changed "everything".

We think of the benefits of complexity and a massive economic surplus as normal.
But when civilization was starting out, in each separate location, the possibilities for specialization, manufacturing at scale, and technological development were revolutionary.

A functioning city of 50 000 people can do things that are both irrelevant and impossible for a group of hunter-gatherers. And the rate of change is vastly greater. Hunter-gatherers are as intelligent as the rest of us, but they innovate very slowly.

Those points in common are probably a natural effect of scaling up.

There are two ways to increase your knowledge store. One is through your personal experiences. The other is through sharing the personal experiences of others. The more interaction and the more variety of experience, the greater the knowledge pool. The "communal brain" can store more knowledge than any individual. Get enough people, and you can start specializing. Large groups will inevitably produce more knowledge than small ones.

 

[Crossbreed]

An interesting aside: If "original sin" is an invention of early Christianity, it reduces the value of much of the "old testament", since it was written during times when there was no "generational debt of sin" weighing down newborns.

Paul (who wrote the book of Romans quoted above) was not only an apostle, he was a degreed Pharisee.* He necessarily considered the Old Testament when he wrote his books.

*According to some sources, that made him a rabbi, too.

 

[Au Naturel]

Paul (who wrote the book of Romans quoted above) was not only an apostle, he was a degreed Pharisee.* He necessarily considered the Old Testament when he wrote his books.

*According to some sources, that made him a rabbi, too.

All of the early Christians would have identified themselves as Jews. The Judeo-Christian separation started happening around the 2nd century. From everything I have read, Jesus was an observant Jew. The "Last Supper" was a Passover Seder.

Some Jews today consider Jesus a rabbi (of sorts) and consider all the Messianic talk to be after-the-fact marketing. Never mind the "Jews for Jesus" crowd.