what do christians say about chinese people

[BTirish]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, what's wrong with torturing people? And only for, like...forever, you know?

You don't seem to be starting with a remotely humane definition of "right" or "fair", so I doubt you are really capable of presenting an argument in this context. But I'll give you the benefit of a doubt. So present your best theodicy for the Christian God, and if you say anything quasi-rational, I'll address it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the major point of my posts to both of the other posters was this: if you're going to suggest that Christian views are absurd, you need to do a little more work than pointing to one fact (like the fact that China was not or is not fully evangelized) and posing a rhetorical question like "doesn't that mean that Christianity is a man-made religion?" One needs to actually spell out the argument, so that whatever basic principles are involved in one's views are open to discussion.

So, I feel like I should first respond to your rhetorical question,[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, what's wrong with torturing people? And only for, like...forever, you know?

[/ QUOTE ]by just saying that I don't know. You tell me.

But I'll be nicer and instead pose another question. One of the premises involved in the Christian view is this: criminals deserve to be punished. Another is this: the punishment due for a crime is proportional both to what was done and against whom it was done.

Do you agree or disagree with these premises? If you disagree, then fine. But you'll have to prove that these premises (or any of a number of others involved in the Christian view) are wrong before you'll have shown the Christian position to be absurd.

Also, as for this:[ QUOTE ]
if you say anything quasi-rational, I'll address it.

[/ QUOTE ]Can we dispense with language like this? I don't see what end it serves, since you will not cow me by it, and it just makes things so uncivil.

I'll gladly proceed to offer an explanation of the Christian belief in hell, if you'll just answer my question about those premises concerning punishment.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
But I'll be nicer and instead pose another question. One of the premises involved in the Christian view is this: criminals deserve to be punished. Another is this: the punishment due for a crime is proportional both to what was done and against whom it was done.

Do you agree or disagree with these premises? If you disagree, then fine. But you'll have to prove that these premises (or any of a number of others involved in the Christian view) are wrong before you'll have shown the Christian position to be absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

you can't prove those premises wrong because what anyone "deserves" is not a question of fact.

by the way, the "against whom" part is superfluous, because if changing the "whom" makes any difference then it can easily be considered changing the "what."

[BTirish]

[ QUOTE ]
you can't prove those premises wrong because what anyone "deserves" is not a question of fact.

by the way, the "against whom" part is superfluous, because if changing the "whom" makes any difference then it can easily be considered changing the "what."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, either you think you can't prove the premises wrong, OR you think that "what someone deserves is not a question of fact." I don't see how you can consistently hold both. If you think that what someone deserves is not a question of fact, then it would follow that the premises are in fact false. But then you need to provide some kind of argumentation for the premise that "what someone deserves is not a question of fact." Some clarification of what exactly you mean would be helpful too.

And I suppose that the "against whom" is superfluous if you grant, as you've said, that "against whom" is a part of "what" is done. But surely we talk about the relative gravity of offenses like murder and theft, in the abstract, without specific reference to who the victim is. In general, murder is worse than theft, without taking into consideration whether the victims in question are one's spouse or a stranger. So I don't think I'm nuts to say that we can specify kinds of action without specifying against whom those actions are done. Fair enough?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we dispense with language like this [quasi-rational]? I don't see what end it serves, since you will not cow me by it, and it just makes things so uncivil.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't being imprecise or rude. Rather I was disclaiming that I can only dispute claims that are presented on rational grounds. Nonrational claims, special pleading, and expectations of privileged status I can only ignore (or ridicule, as seems best.) These count for most of your post, just to warn you.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the premises involved in the Christian view is this: criminals deserve to be punished.

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-rational claim, as this language begs the question that humans can be criminals in a metaphysical context (as opposed to a societal context, which is the only context where "criminal" is actually meaningful.)

[ QUOTE ]
Another is this: the punishment due for a crime is proportional both to what was done and against whom it was done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, non-rational claim in a metaphysical context.

Oh, and

[ QUOTE ]
if you're going to suggest that Christian views are absurd

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. I'm suggesting that you're absurd for believing them in the hyper-intellectualized fashion you obviously do.

[BTirish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One of the premises involved in the Christian view is this: criminals deserve to be punished.

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-rational claim, as this language begs the question that humans can be criminals in a metaphysical context (as opposed to a societal context, which is the only context where "criminal" is actually meaningful.)

[/ QUOTE ]

And what makes this claim nonrational? An explanation would be helpful. I would appreciate an answer to this question, but I'll respond to your view anyway.

You say that the term 'criminal' only has meaning in a societal context. I answer that society, broadly speaking, is what exists between or among any intelligent beings in relationship to each other. God is an intelligent being in relationship to human beings. What is nonrational in this view?

I will gladly admit that the terms 'society' and 'criminal' are applied analogically rather than univocally (with respect to their "normal" usage) in the case of the human being's relationship to God. Analogical predication is not nonrational. Or, if you think it is, you need to provide some argument for why it is so.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another is this: the punishment due for a crime is proportional both to what was done and against whom it was done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, non-rational claim in a metaphysical context.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same question (what makes it nonrational?) and similar response as above.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and

[ QUOTE ]
if you're going to suggest that Christian views are absurd

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. I'm suggesting that you're absurd for believing them in the hyper-intellectualized fashion you obviously do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall you having specifically said that. If I missed it, my apologies. I do recall you rhetorically asking something like "what could possibly be wrong with God torturing people for forever?" If the implication of your question wasn't that the Christian view is incorrect on account of some absurdity made evident by the answer to the question, then my mistake. But this is precisely why it would be helpful if you'd do a little more honest intellectual work to spell out your argument, rather than just tossing out rhetorical questions.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
And what makes this claim nonrational? An explanation would be helpful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should look up words you don't know? Nonrational:
1. not based on reason; "there is a great deal that is nonrational in modern culture"
2. obtained through intuition rather than from reasoning or observation

Nonrational claims are possible because of language's power as a humanizing medium. Linguistic constructions with no actual meaning acquire subjective meaning through analogy/association.

These language games are obviously part of why language is so powerful, but language games have no place in philosophical reasoning. All your terms must have actual meaning. So it is nonrational to claim that humans can be criminals with respect to God's law because the grammatical subject "God" cannot be given an actual meaning by proceeding rationally from actual definitions. (You're welcome to try though!)

And, by extension, thus God's "law" is nonrational, and "criminals" implicated by violation of this law are also nonrational creatures.

[ QUOTE ]
Analogical predication is not nonrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually it is. Again, it means nothing that you can construct a subjectively meaningful sentence that analogizes your role in human society into a metaphysical context. Means NOTHING.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, either you think you can't prove the premises wrong, OR you think that "what someone deserves is not a question of fact." I don't see how you can consistently hold both. If you think that what someone deserves is not a question of fact, then it would follow that the premises are in fact false. But then you need to provide some kind of argumentation for the premise that "what someone deserves is not a question of fact." Some clarification of what exactly you mean would be helpful too.

[/ QUOTE ]

only statements of fact can be proven wrong. if it's a statement of fact then it's pretty mundane, basically "criminals are punished in our society" or "criminals can expect to be punished" from which few important conclusions follow.

in the sense i'm pretty sure you're using the word, "criminals deserve to be punished" is a declaration of taste. that doesn't make it "wrong."

[ QUOTE ]
And I suppose that the "against whom" is superfluous if you grant, as you've said, that "against whom" is a part of "what" is done. But surely we talk about the relative gravity of offenses like murder and theft, in the abstract, without specific reference to who the victim is. In general, murder is worse than theft, without taking into consideration whether the victims in question are one's spouse or a stranger. So I don't think I'm nuts to say that we can specify kinds of action without specifying against whom those actions are done. Fair enough?

[/ QUOTE ]

i just wanted to make sure that people agree "against whom" only matters because the injury can change. causing the same injury to any two people tends to merit the same punishment.

none of this matters anyway. the only worthwhile battleground in this argument is the "god inspired the bible" claim. if we disagree on that, we're barely speaking the same language.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I understand atheism fine. It is the disbelief in God. This does not mean that a group of people in this category don't share some common beliefs. Believing that religion will solve most of the world's ills is a belief, and an unproven one. Beleiving that religion corrupts everything is a belief. These are beliefs supported by certain atheists, beliefs that are pushed by certain atheists. So, if a Christian is telling me I should believe in God, and a person (doesn't have to be an atheist) is telling me religion is evil, I consider these beliefs held by others used to get me on their side. I consider the two no better or worse then each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you consider the 'pushing' of any two beliefs to be equal. For instance, a proactive racist and a proactive equal rights campaigner. Or can one be good and beneficial whereas the other should be shot down and argued against for the benefit of society.

Racism was a misguided historic social belief supported by psuedo-science and a lack of open mindedness and progressiveness, equality is the absence of those opinions.

I don't think there is anything wrong with promoting equality or "a-racism" and trying to change other people's minds. It is obviously that this also relates to theism and a-theism.

[BTirish]

[ QUOTE ]
Nonrational claims are possible because of language's power as a humanizing medium. Linguistic constructions with no actual meaning acquire subjective meaning through analogy/association.

These language games are obviously part of why language is so powerful, but language games have no place in philosophical reasoning. All your terms must have actual meaning. So it is nonrational to claim that humans can be criminals with respect to God's law because the grammatical subject "God" cannot be given an actual meaning by proceeding rationally from actual definitions. (You're welcome to try though!)

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be most interested to hear your arguments for the specific claim that the term 'God' can have no actual meaning. Perhaps you could give an example of what you mean by "giv[ing] an actual meaning by proceeding rationally from actual definitions" in the case of a word you do think has "actual meaning"? And what is "actual" about actual meaning? What's it opposed to?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Analogical predication is not nonrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually it is. Again, it means nothing that you can construct a subjectively meaningful sentence that analogizes your role in human society into a metaphysical context. Means NOTHING.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except it obviously can't mean nothing at all. At the least, you obviously understood what I meant well enough to make the response that the sentences in question are nonrational, and to suggest that the terms are only properly used in a properly societal context. This goes back to a question above: how are you defining 'meaning', and what is 'actual meaning' specifying?

I think perhaps you are confusing analogy with metaphor? I'm not suggesting that human beings can be criminals before God in the way that the dawn can be rosy-fingered.

You say that analogical predication is "usually" nonrational. Care to give an example where you do think it's rational?

[Sephus]

you know your debate is approaching its end asymptotically when it becomes necessary to clarify what "meaning" means.