In all curiosity, do you have any idea what these mean? I do not want to sound callous but I see little connection between rationality and the passages quoted.
The connection is obvious to me.
Someone well versed in scripture and commentary would have little trouble responding to this list. Do not commit the same fallacy that many Christians do by simply pulling words out of the Bible and dropping them in a list as if they prove a point.
I believe they do prove a point. The fact that Paul, who invented Christian theology, just once in his life said, “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ,” shows that Paul had deeply flawed epistemology. If you played back a tape recording of John von Neumann’s entire life I am confident you would not find one statement like that. None of these quotes were off-the-cuff remarks; they were all written down after much thought.
Futhermore, Christians are not making a mistake when they do that; the mistake lies prior to that in their reasoning. They are operating under the assumption that you don’t need to check the context of the verse. God said it, that settles it. Contextual criticism is of the devil; it assumes that the world is not full of simple objective moral truths. So turnabout is fair play.
Finally, I see a lot of this same scriptural approach on LW. Eliezer sums up a post in a single line; people then quote that line if the words in it match the words in someone else’s post or comment, without considering whether it applies in that context. For example, some people applied “Reversed stupidity is not intelligence” to my post on Aumann agreement and voting, apparently based on simple Eliza-like pattern-matching.
For future reference, if you pick and choose translations (NIV here, KJV there) you already have a strong and legitimate mark against you. If you disagree let me know. I am willing to defend this point.
Noted. Usually I pick whichever I can find first, or whichever sounds the most well-written. The KJV sounds grander, but the NIV is the clearest, with NASB intermediate on both measures.
One could easily take that passage to have said nothing at all about good philosophy. Surely no one here would be defending “hollow and deceptive” philosophy?
They are operating under the assumption that you don’t need to check the context of the verse. God said it, that settles it. Contextual criticism is of the devil; it assumes that the world is not full of simple objective moral truths. So turnabout is fair play.
I have to say I’ve never met a christian who would agree with that; they think they are using things in context, even if they aren’t. Turnabout may be fair play, but it’s not going to win you an argument with them, if that’s your goal...
(Edit) My comment is probably a little more aggressive than I would have preferred. I figured I would give a fair warning.
The connection is obvious to me.
But you are not important when trying to persuade someone else of a point.
I believe they do prove a point. The fact that Paul, who invented Christian theology, just once in his life said, “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ,” shows that Paul had deeply flawed epistemology.
And what, according to Paul, are the basic principles of the world? Do you know? I highly doubt he is talking about science or math or the roots of meta-physics. The second half of the sentence can make a valid point in the sense that philosophy should not be dependent on Christ and if there is a collision between Science and Christ this passage is telling you to go with Christ. But without specifically studying what “the principles of this world” means, the Christian skeptic will probably choose to interpret “this world” as “ungodly nations” and unless you can back the argument up with something more than how the NIV translated that particular sentence you are dead in the water.
Futhermore, Christians are not making a mistake when they do that; the mistake lies prior to that in their reasoning.
Actually, they are. Context is extremely important when studying the Bible. Context is important when studying anything. Throwing out the context is like watching the end of a movie and deciding the character is the antagonist because it killed someone.
They are operating under the assumption that you don’t need to check the context of the verse. God said it, that settles it. Contextual criticism is of the devil; it assumes that the world is not full of simple objective moral truths. So turnabout is fair play.
In all of my conversations with Christians, and having attended classes that specifically teach how Christians are supposed to study the Bible, the overwhelming majority believe that context is key to understanding a passage of scripture. If you want me to find specific people who say this I can, but I flatly claim that your statement is wrong
.
Noted. Usually I pick whichever I can find first, or whichever sounds the most well-written. The KJV sounds grander, but the NIV is the clearest, with NASB intermediate on both measures.
The KJV has been rejected in most Christian apologetic circles as a fatally flawed translation. Personally, I would not use it all when talking to apologetics unless they specifically state that it is a valid and unerring translation. Again, if you are curious about why this is I can elaborate.
The KJV has been rejected in most Christian apologetic circles as a fatally flawed translation. Personally, I would not use it all when talking to apologetics unless they specifically state that it is a valid and unerring translation. Again, if you are curious about why this is I can elaborate.
KJV is still very popular with some churches. I am familiar with its flaws. Many conservatives are highly suspicious of the NIV translation, because its translators ranked verses by their probability of being original, which implies that the Bible is no longer inerrant.
The connection is obvious to me.
I believe they do prove a point. The fact that Paul, who invented Christian theology, just once in his life said, “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ,” shows that Paul had deeply flawed epistemology. If you played back a tape recording of John von Neumann’s entire life I am confident you would not find one statement like that. None of these quotes were off-the-cuff remarks; they were all written down after much thought.
Futhermore, Christians are not making a mistake when they do that; the mistake lies prior to that in their reasoning. They are operating under the assumption that you don’t need to check the context of the verse. God said it, that settles it. Contextual criticism is of the devil; it assumes that the world is not full of simple objective moral truths. So turnabout is fair play.
Finally, I see a lot of this same scriptural approach on LW. Eliezer sums up a post in a single line; people then quote that line if the words in it match the words in someone else’s post or comment, without considering whether it applies in that context. For example, some people applied “Reversed stupidity is not intelligence” to my post on Aumann agreement and voting, apparently based on simple Eliza-like pattern-matching.
Noted. Usually I pick whichever I can find first, or whichever sounds the most well-written. The KJV sounds grander, but the NIV is the clearest, with NASB intermediate on both measures.
One could easily take that passage to have said nothing at all about good philosophy. Surely no one here would be defending “hollow and deceptive” philosophy?
I have to say I’ve never met a christian who would agree with that; they think they are using things in context, even if they aren’t. Turnabout may be fair play, but it’s not going to win you an argument with them, if that’s your goal...
(Edit) My comment is probably a little more aggressive than I would have preferred. I figured I would give a fair warning.
But you are not important when trying to persuade someone else of a point.
And what, according to Paul, are the basic principles of the world? Do you know? I highly doubt he is talking about science or math or the roots of meta-physics. The second half of the sentence can make a valid point in the sense that philosophy should not be dependent on Christ and if there is a collision between Science and Christ this passage is telling you to go with Christ. But without specifically studying what “the principles of this world” means, the Christian skeptic will probably choose to interpret “this world” as “ungodly nations” and unless you can back the argument up with something more than how the NIV translated that particular sentence you are dead in the water.
Actually, they are. Context is extremely important when studying the Bible. Context is important when studying anything. Throwing out the context is like watching the end of a movie and deciding the character is the antagonist because it killed someone.
In all of my conversations with Christians, and having attended classes that specifically teach how Christians are supposed to study the Bible, the overwhelming majority believe that context is key to understanding a passage of scripture. If you want me to find specific people who say this I can, but I flatly claim that your statement is wrong .
The KJV has been rejected in most Christian apologetic circles as a fatally flawed translation. Personally, I would not use it all when talking to apologetics unless they specifically state that it is a valid and unerring translation. Again, if you are curious about why this is I can elaborate.
KJV is still very popular with some churches. I am familiar with its flaws. Many conservatives are highly suspicious of the NIV translation, because its translators ranked verses by their probability of being original, which implies that the Bible is no longer inerrant.
They are a minority and getting smaller. You will not be persuading anyone from those churches anyway.
Edit: I agree with you that it sounds grander, though. :)
<- is from one of those churches.