tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post115033255133077193..comments2023-03-30T00:58:24.659-05:00Comments on the john 3:30 group: On God’s power in Christ’s weaknessMark Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00266692942693695283noreply@blogger.comBlogger105125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1152741257364886942006-07-12T16:54:00.000-05:002006-07-12T16:54:00.000-05:00Oh, did you see the interview then? case he was h...Oh, did you see the interview then? case he was hilarious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1152652762975786182006-07-11T16:19:00.000-05:002006-07-11T16:19:00.000-05:00LOL that's funnyLOL that's funnyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1152588412150810122006-07-10T22:26:00.000-05:002006-07-10T22:26:00.000-05:00I just saw Warren Buffet on CR. He is a man of tr...I just saw Warren Buffet on CR. He is a man of true humility. He is not at all falsely humble about his gifts. That is what makes him a great man. All those who seek to know, and to live with, humility have a lot to learn from him. Almost as much as they can learn from Socrates…Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1152396005243411132006-07-08T17:00:00.000-05:002006-07-08T17:00:00.000-05:00Thom, your back again. Does this mean that you ar...Thom, your back again. Does this mean that you are back in earnest. What I mean is, are you back and willing to answer some questions about your previous posts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1152378737760466832006-07-08T12:12:00.000-05:002006-07-08T12:12:00.000-05:00good. that's why it's up here.good. that's why it's up here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1152377460974777492006-07-08T11:51:00.000-05:002006-07-08T11:51:00.000-05:00people talk and word gets around. There are peopl...people talk and word gets around. There are people reading this as we speak.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1152067594761312792006-07-04T21:46:00.000-05:002006-07-04T21:46:00.000-05:00Thom, you back in name and spirit! Thanks for dro...Thom, you back in name and spirit! Thanks for dropping the cloak buddy. <BR/>Curiouser and curiouser…<BR/>You say that this is a “tired” yet you return again. And you say that this is a tired post, but there doesn’t seem to be much action elsewhere on this blog, so who can blame me for keeping things moving. Where is the proprietor of this blog? Or Thom is it you by proxy? Anyway, I don’t do much blogging so I have enjoyed this one. Josh Furnal: are you tired of this post?<BR/><BR/>Happy fourth! (chanting) U-S-A, U-S-AAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1152046280413718372006-07-04T15:51:00.000-05:002006-07-04T15:51:00.000-05:00..."Zach,"Give it a rest. First of all, the last p......<BR/><BR/>"Zach,"<BR/><BR/>Give it a rest. First of all, the last post by anonymous was not written by me. I don't know who wrote it (I agree with him or her, despite your forceful arguments against him or her). But I myself (Brian included) have already finished arguing with you. Lastly, this discussion is tired. Sum up, and move on to another topic, or take your syllogisms some place where they'll be better appreciated. Not too many thinkers here (myself included) are as lucid or well trained as you. <BR/><BR/>...Thom Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18436448315505182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1152044446270444092006-07-04T15:20:00.000-05:002006-07-04T15:20:00.000-05:00Brian-who-is-not-Thom. This is a theological asse...Brian-who-is-not-Thom. This is a theological assertion, which you really could not claim to know:<BR/><BR/>“When God recieves Glory it's not to his own benifit, but the worlds.” <BR/><BR/>I might ask if it was possible for the world to benefit from something that was not to God’s benefit (careful, do not equivocate here). Secondly, if there are things that people can do in heaven to glorify God, is it really necessary that they also “benefit” the world? What does it even mean for God receiving glory to “benefit” the world?<BR/><BR/>“God doen't need to recieve glory, its not like he dries up if people stop filling up his glory tank.”<BR/><BR/>No one was asserting that. <BR/><BR/>“Basically he doen't seek glory for his own good, but for the good of his creation.”<BR/><BR/>Hmmm. That is really a reassertion of your first claim. This is really difficult position to hold. Why for instance would God create anything at all? Why does creation suffer (i.e. problem of evil) if the only reason that they are created is to ultimately benefit themselves. Do you see how this is a very strange ends. Why would we have free will? Why wouldn’t God just do things for our benefit anyway? <BR/><BR/>“So even in self-agrandizement he is really putting us first. The most unloving and selfish thing he could do is not let his name, his glory be know.”<BR/><BR/>Wow, what do I say to that? Your implied syllogism might even be true, but it does not work in reverse. Again, I would be willing to lay this out logically if that is to your liking. <BR/><BR/>“So God bringing glory to his name, and god displaying self-abnegation are probably not good examples of opposites, and do not support the idea that everything come out of it's opposite.”<BR/><BR/>You did manage to slip in a “so” there, but in no way did you show that this is an inference from what you have already presented. You do not have an argument here you have a threefold reassertion of the same point. You might say that I have not presented an argument either, but neither did I use the word “so”. I presented concepts and appealed to our intuitions, which you must have accepted on some level since you took to trying to explain them away in your last post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1152037777386180792006-07-04T13:29:00.000-05:002006-07-04T13:29:00.000-05:00I see a few minor problem with all this; When God ...I see a few minor problem with all this; When God recieves Glory it's not to his own benifit, but the worlds. God doen't need to recieve glory, its not like he dries up if people stop filling up his glory tank. Basically he doen't seek glory for his own good, but for the good of his creation. So even in self-agrandizement he is really putting us first. The most unloving and selfish thing he could do is not let his name, his glory be know.<BR/><BR/>So God bringing glory to his name, and god displaying self-abnegation are probably not good examples of opposites, and do not support the idea that everything come out of it's opposite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1151946823562224212006-07-03T12:13:00.000-05:002006-07-03T12:13:00.000-05:00hmmmm, i am not sure what to think about that rapi...hmmmm, i am not sure what to think about that rapid change of heart.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1151941041018560522006-07-03T10:37:00.000-05:002006-07-03T10:37:00.000-05:00gosh, you know what? you're right.gosh, you know what? you're right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1151940106337128312006-07-03T10:21:00.000-05:002006-07-03T10:21:00.000-05:00Over one hundred comments!To Brian-who-is-not-Thom...Over one hundred comments!<BR/><BR/>To Brian-who-is-not-Thom. Your previous statement declared that self-aggrandizement was only the act of grabbing for more power, that is false. I am happy-er with this definition, but I would ask, Is dictionary.com really a good source for these kin of discussions?<BR/>1. god <BR/>a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. <BR/>b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. <BR/>2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. <BR/>3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol. <BR/>4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god. <BR/>5. A very handsome man. <BR/>6. A powerful ruler or despot.<BR/>Now I don’t know about you, but I am not satisfied with that definition of God. I like a little more. See quoting a dictionary is simply to quote an authority, no different then quoting Aristotle. People have always wondered what the “good” was, and I think that they wanted to know more then dictionary.com would tell them. <BR/> “God can't enhance or exaggerate His own importance power or reputation and He can't get more power because He's all powerful.”<BR/>We might be able to debate most of this sentence. Can God enact a logical contradiction. Can God make everybody in the world Christian? Can God sin? Can God let us into his holiness without taking away our sin? <BR/>It’s a huge mistake to think that self-aggrandizement is only about power. It is just as much, if not more, an issue of fame, glory or what they refer to in the East as “Face.” Perhaps the latter comes the closest. Therefore another question would be that if God cannot get more power/glory/“face” then why create us at all? And why would you and I care if others worship God or not, unless we were jealous for his glory? These are some things you can think about.<BR/><BR/>I think you should play out the options of this sentence:<BR/>“john 18, talking to pilate. He doesn't have to fight because He's the true king.”<BR/><BR/>Are you familiar with the notion of a bad syllogism? There is one here<BR/>“i don't think self-aggrandizement is the right word to apply to God. self-aggrendizement is about getting more glory for yourself but God can't get any more glory. i think getting people to admit the truth about God is different than self-aggrandizement.”<BR/><BR/>I would LOVE for you to explicate this phrase: “getting people to admit the truth about God”. <BR/>I am dying to know what this means and how you understand worship in a way that this seems anything like an appropriate understanding. Do you really consider a persons conversion, that is the time when they turn away from the world and their life is redefined by where they put there allegiance, do you really consider that simply “getting people to admit the truth about God”. I can just see a picture of the world where this phrase was appropriate. Evangelists would be huge thugs who went around pushing people up against walls and twisting their arms behind their backs saying, “Go on. Admit the truth Jesus is Lord.” Wow, I really hope that you spoke without thinking here, and that you really don’t believe this, its just kind of sad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1151902220994242222006-07-02T23:50:00.000-05:002006-07-02T23:50:00.000-05:00my name is brian, i don't know thom. self-ag·gran·...my name is brian, i don't know thom. <BR/><BR/>self-ag·gran·dize·ment<BR/>n.<BR/>The act or practice of enhancing or exaggerating one's own importance, power, or reputation.<BR/><BR/>dictionary.com<BR/><BR/>God can't enhance or exaggerate His own importance power or reputation and He can't get more power because He's all powerful. <BR/><BR/>john 18, talking to pilate. He doesn't have to fight because He's the true king. <BR/><BR/>to anonymous, yes, i don't think self-aggrandizement is the right word to apply to God. self-aggrendizement is about getting more glory for yourself but God can't get any more glory. i think getting people to admit the truth about God is different than self-aggrandizement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1151900845199276942006-07-02T23:27:00.000-05:002006-07-02T23:27:00.000-05:00Hold on. Anonymous, are you saying that a supreme...Hold on. Anonymous, are you saying that a supreme being that creates all people throughout history, and then commands them to worship Him, are you saying that such a being does not practice self-aggrandizement?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1151900325900151672006-07-02T23:18:00.000-05:002006-07-02T23:18:00.000-05:00Thom, glad to have you back. You’ll have to forgi...Thom, glad to have you back. You’ll have to forgive me, I am not entirely sure what you mean. Punctuation goes a long way towards clarity. In its absence I have to make some inferences as to what you mean. <BR/><BR/>“i don't think self-aggrendisement applies to God.”<BR/>Assertion only warrants counter assertion. I think it does. <BR/><BR/>“so the vurtue of humilty can only be seen in jesus by people who believe He came from heaven?”<BR/>Short answer: yes. Of course they could doubt the factuality of the whole story and still meet this qualification.<BR/><BR/>Could you elucidate this ‘sentence’:<BR/>“the opposite of self-abnigation i don't think is God's true righteosness. God's righteousness is not self-aggrandisemnt.”<BR/><BR/>“[Self-aggrandizement], that's something you do to try to get more power and God can't get more power.”<BR/>Well, the first part of your conjunction is simply false. And I don’t really know what to say about the latter bit. Somehow you found a statement that’s true, false, and neither all at the same time.<BR/><BR/>Finally your reference to John 18 is opaque to say the least. It’s a big chapter. Which part is supposed to reveal the truth of his self-abnegation? Is it verse three when Jesus accepts the impulsive worship of the soldiers and officials? Or is it verses 5-8;20-23;33-36 when he engages with banter with his captors. Or is it between verses 10 and 11 in the miracle not recorded here. Or is it verses 36 and 37 when Jesus claims to be a King with his own kingdom. There is so much claim to power and influence in this chapter is difficult for me to see where you are pointing to humility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1151896542409719742006-07-02T22:15:00.000-05:002006-07-02T22:15:00.000-05:00so the vurtue of humilty can only be seen in jesus...so the vurtue of humilty can only be seen in jesus by people who believe He came from heaven? or else what else would be the self-aggrendisement that people see in Him to let them see His self-abnigation?<BR/><BR/>the opposite of self-abnigation i don't think is God's true righteosness. God's righteousness is not self-aggrandisemnt. that's something you do to try to get more power and God can't get more power. self-abnegation comes from truth, the truth about who Jesus is (john 18). i don't think self-aggrendisement applies to God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1151894656207342832006-07-02T21:44:00.000-05:002006-07-02T21:44:00.000-05:00Exactly; in glory. See that’s not wrong for God. ...Exactly; in glory. See that’s not wrong for God. Then when he came to earth he was able to put aside that glory in an act exemplary of humility. Thank you anonymous for that reminder.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1151874765436391132006-07-02T16:12:00.000-05:002006-07-02T16:12:00.000-05:00like jesus once practised self-aggrandisement?like jesus once practised self-aggrandisement?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1151871427216446122006-07-02T15:17:00.000-05:002006-07-02T15:17:00.000-05:00Josh, thats a good point. One of the great benifi...Josh, thats a good point. One of the great benifits of the Socrates quote is that it can teach us about the audience for lessons of humility. In fact it may be the case that we can only see the virtue of humility in those who have once practiced self-aggrandizementAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1151793108925645122006-07-01T17:31:00.000-05:002006-07-01T17:31:00.000-05:00Well Thom sorry to see you go, your contributions ...Well Thom sorry to see you go, your contributions here will be missed. <BR/>A few clarifications though. First of all Pears was in fact, connecting the early with the late Wittgenstein. Furthermore, while the Notebooks do in fact bare the dates you provide, upon examining a copy you would find that there is additional material of Wittgenstein’s (letters, scraps not in the actual notebooks) that extend in date well into the forties, and well into the time when we can date much of the contents of the Investigations. So much of the material contained in the Notebooks does rightfully belong in his later period. So I think this statement is off base:<BR/>“He lived a little while longer than that, and dealt with religion, and Christianity, a lot more extensively in his latter writing.” <BR/>In fact, I am not rightly sure what that statement means, though I would very much like to have some quotes to back it up, if such really exist. Anyway, virtually everything that we have (including Investigations) was compiled and published posthumously. And the executors of his estate claim that there is more then ten time the amount of published writings as yet untranslated/unpublished. An important article on this is Stanley Cavell’s work entitled "The Availability of Wittgenstein's Later Philosophy.” It is a must read for any would-be students of Wittgenstein, as Cavell was a student of Rush Reese’s. <BR/> The problem is that Wittgenstein is Christianized where he was vague and done so to support the theories of scholars for whom philosophy is a kind of hobby. The ultimate result is that we receive a heavily filtered and baptized Wittgenstein, not unlike the heavily filtered and baptized Aristotle of the medieval scholastics, or the early church fathers who went so far as to claim that Plato was a Christian blessed with Christian knowledge. So we should be similarly weary of comparable claims made of Wittgenstein.<BR/><BR/>Next this claim:<BR/>“If God is the world, the Tractatus would be pointing to nothing, because Wittgenstein was attempting to point beyond the world to das Mystiche.”<BR/><BR/>I highly recommend rereading the first two sentences of the Tractatus before making that claim. The best part about the Tractatus is that it does point to nothing. That’s why he started to move (in the single most famous and widely discussed shift in philosophy) away from that position in Investigations. I suggest all of the relevant quotes of the Investigations which say that “the author of the Tractatus thought…”<BR/><BR/>Well, I think that is all. It is an irony of ironies that for many philosophers, and unfortunately many more theologians, Wittgenstein is the fly paper from which they can not detach themselves.<BR/><BR/>Again, Thom I have appreciated the talk. I have grown and changed from it. I hope our paths cross again some day this side of glory. Blessings, love, and peace in your search for self-abnegation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1151787251938843752006-07-01T15:54:00.000-05:002006-07-01T15:54:00.000-05:00...I never said that I was sure Wittgenstein was a......<BR/><BR/>I never said that I was sure Wittgenstein was a Christian. I said that Kallenberg and McClendon argued persuasively. They are not the only ones of course. And yes, Zach, they are two different sources. Kallenberg does reference McClendon, but he makes his own argument. McClendon spends 60 pages arguing it, and Kallenberg one chapter. <BR/><BR/>Josh, your Pears quote deals with Wittgenstein's thought in 1914-22. He lived a little while longer than that, and dealt with religion, and Christianity, a lot more extensively in his latter writing. Moreover, the Pears quote does not do justice to the Tractatus' implicit distinction between the world and God. If God <I>is</I> the world, the Tractatus would be pointing to nothing, because Wittgenstein was attempting to point beyond the world to <I>das Mystiche</I>. <BR/><BR/>Josh, Kallenberg does believe Wittgenstein was a Christian, albeit an unconventional one. If he didn't, he wouldn't have argued that he was. <BR/><BR/>At any rate, you guys can talk amongst yourselves now. I'm done here.<BR/><BR/>...Thom Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18436448315505182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1151782755515976182006-07-01T14:39:00.000-05:002006-07-01T14:39:00.000-05:00Like Josh Furnal, I am less then certain that anyo...Like Josh Furnal, I am less then certain that anyone could/should claim Wittgenstein was a Christian. Though I suppose the people that you quote would have to say that to use him to the extent that they do. Josh, I will try to find the references you quoted. Wait, I just reread what you wrote, and are you saying that “McClendon's Systematic Theology: Volume 3: Witness and Kallenberg's Ethics as Grammar: Changing the Postmodern Subject” are actually the same source? I mean, are you saying that one quotes the other? So that is not two sources arguing for the same point, its really one. Josh, would you classify the arguments presented in those sources as “persuasive”?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1151782279077297722006-07-01T14:31:00.000-05:002006-07-01T14:31:00.000-05:00Short answer first: Thom, I don’t agree with you t...Short answer first: Thom, I don’t agree with you that there is some significant difference in Justice across groups like Buddhists and Christians. So my thought exparament is to try and tease out the subtleties of you view which I think has gaps, not my own. So I would never have a reason to answer my question, I was just waiting for you to answer. Indeed the terms are “thick,” Thom you brought us to this point by numerous qualifications and retrospective changes in the meaning of the words used. So if there is something you don’t understand then ask, if not then I wait for your answer to my main question:<BR/><BR/>What would the difference be in that which the 20 Christian anecdotes HAVE IN COMMON and that which the 40 Buddhist anecdotes HAVE IN COMMON? That is my concern.<BR/><BR/>Second my “argument” for the value of the Socrates quote was simply that it can teach us about virtue. That’s the claim, which I think is supported by the parallels between your statements and Socrates’ statements. Secondly my Darfur anecdote was a point/argument that was inspired by the Socrates quote. Though I recognize that I did not make the connection explicit. Also it was not strictly an “argument,” so if you would like it in a more formal (logical) rendition, that would be a fair request.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23297866.post-1151772751769647182006-07-01T11:52:00.000-05:002006-07-01T11:52:00.000-05:00..."Read what I said again. I said: What would the......<BR/><BR/>"Read what I said again. I said: What would the difference be in that which the 20 Christian anecdotes HAVE IN COMMON and that which the 40 Buddhist anecdotes HAVE IN COMMON? That is my concern."<BR/><BR/>Please answer your own question in your own terms. That'll help me.<BR/><BR/>...Thom Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18436448315505182664noreply@blogger.com