Actually all I said was it was a cogent explanation of his position.

I apologize, I wasn't actually referring to your remarks. Cl himself referred to his answer as a "cogent" response to my question; but it should be obvious to the most casual observer that it was just another dishonest evasion, tantamount to simply saying "love is awesome." Sure it's awesome, but how does it give merit to belief in God? That's the question before Cl, the question that he has repeatedly avoided.

"Cogent" is the last word I would use to describe this answer

Actually all I said was it was a cogent explanation of his position. As an argument and answer I don't think it stands either. To even postulate that belief in God is based on love is question begging because it seems to assume that "love" has some special, spiritual place in the emotional spectrum.

To answer Chet's question, reasonable belief is based on love when we act from love as opposed to fear. Being moral only so that we might escape punishment is self-serving, and true religion cannot be founded upon self-serving belief systems. We shouldn’t love others because our religion, our mom, or our government tells us to. We should love others because it alleviates genuine privation and suffering in the lives of our fellow beings. Not incidentally, selfish, fear-based religion perfectly describes the rigid and loveless religion of the Pharisees, which Jesus criticized for its undue and morbid focus on the fear of punishment and condemnation. But a reasonable believer is not unduly or morbidly focused on the fear of punishment and condemnation, for reasonable believers believe that forgiveness exists. And a central tenet of reasonable belief is that there is no condemnation for those who ask for forgiveness. So in fact, it's not that I didn't have an answer to Chet. And I had a cogent response to Chet's question the whole damned time.

That doesn't even begin to answer my question, because you've still not explained how a reasonable belief is based on love. "Cogent" is the last word I would use to describe this answer, it's more like "evasive written diarrhea."

You've explained how a reasonable love might be based on belief, but that's not what I asked. According to you, a reasonable belief - in God - is based on love. But love does not prove the existence of God. Love does not give you a basis for your belief - your belief gives you a basis for your understanding of love, at least from what you've written here.

So despite what you consider an "answer", you still haven't explained how a reasonable belief in God could be based on love.

But a reasonable believer is not unduly or morbidly focused on the fear of punishment and condemnation, for reasonable believers believe that forgiveness exists. And a central tenet of reasonable belief is that there is no condemnation for those who ask for forgiveness.

While noting your qualifiers "unduly" and "morbidly" I would argue that for a reasonable believer to find comfort in forgiveness requires 1) something to be forgiven and 2) punishment to be avoided. Both of which assume that God is to be feared as he defines the sin and the penalty.

To answer Chet's question, reasonable belief is based on love when we act from love as opposed to fear. Being moral only so that we might escape punishment is self-serving, and true religion cannot be founded upon self-serving belief systems. We shouldn’t love others because our religion, our mom, or our government tells us to. We should love others because it alleviates genuine privation and suffering in the lives of our fellow beings. Not incidentally, selfish, fear-based religion perfectly describes the rigid and loveless religion of the Pharisees, which Jesus criticized for its undue and morbid focus on the fear of punishment and condemnation. But a reasonable believer is not unduly or morbidly focused on the fear of punishment and condemnation, for reasonable believers believe that forgiveness exists. And a central tenet of reasonable belief is that there is no condemnation for those who ask for forgiveness.

Which is a perfectly cogent and rational explanation of your position, or against which others may be interested in arguing. If this was your normal style of debate, I for one would have no issue with you. It's all the peripheral confrontational nitpicking that gets boring.

Personally, I'm always wary of ascribing any motivations to other people, because they're usually wrong. (Penguin_Factory, January 17, 2009, 3:35 pm).

We don't need to denigrate religious believers but we need to instead emphasize our values that we have as individuals. (Teleprompter, January 19, 2009, 8:06 pm)

If this is too challenging, we can always keep trying to get inside each other's minds. That's always a hoot! (Anon, January 20, 2009, 11:38 pm)

SUMMARY:

Standard example of a thread gone awry that I got blamed for. I entered with a good faith comment attacking nobody, complimenting TommyKey, and relaying pertinent information about a past issue to mikespeir. Chet, mikespeir, Libby, Paul S, Teleprompter, Jim C., and Ebonmuse all engage me. Over 12 comments to me are either belittling, contain direct insults, or ad hominem remarks. mikespeir gets away squeaky-clean when he antagonized and attacked me on the same point for well over 6 comments. Chet gets away squeaky-clean with foul language and direct insults in 3 comments. Ebonmuse gets away squeaky-clean with a legitimate quote-mine, four evasions of a basic question, and finally, a red herring in attempt to justifiy the quote-mine.

Let the record show that not a single time in this thread did I engage any other person, and noting the aforementioned exception of my comment to mikespeir, not once did I address any other person in this thread until they addressed me.

ANALYSIS:

(Covers comments made from January 17, 2009, 4:08 pm to January 23, 2009, 10:58 am)

My first comment attempts to expose the misplaced scope of typical, "religion is based in fear" arguments. The comment digs into Slacktivist's reasoning and suggests that Slacktivist, like myself, feels such arguments are sweeping generalizations that lack proper scope. My original comment was to nobody in particular, made a clear and succinct point, and did not attack anybody. Contrary, I complimented TommyKey, then in good faith told mikespeir we could continue dialog on a closed thread at my place if he liked (January 17, 2009, 4:08 pm). mikespeir takes an unnecessary jab by responding with judgment related to that thread, going further than my comment required (January 17, 2009, 5:12 pm).

Chet engages me with two questions (January 17, 2009, 5:41 pm).

I make it clear to mikespeir that I didn't wish to restart our debate in this thread, both out of respect for Ebonmuse and to demonstrate clear desire to stay on topic and avoid thread derailing. (January 17, 2009, 5:53 pm).

I compliment Greta Christina, then further emphasize my desire to steer clear from mikespeir. I give Chet a little grief via a reminder, because previously, in an argument that was not going his way, he declared emphatically that he wouldn't be talking to me anymore. Regardless, in a spirit of rational rigueur, I answer the latter of Chet's two questions (January 17, 2009, 7:44 pm).

Ebonmuse engages me by quoting Luke 12:4-5 with absolutely zero further explanation of its import to my original comment (January 18, 2009, 1:41 am). I reply with some snark, asking Ebonmuse to answer a very straightforward question (January 18, 2009, 2:32 am). Ebonmuse declines, and continued to decline answering this question throughout the remainder of this thread.

Paul S engages me, accuses me of playing a little game, asking me to answer my own question, and introduces side issues not relevant to the OP (January 18, 2009, 1:09 pm). I decline to answer my own question for Ebonmuse's to Paul S, then I address Paul S's tangential concerns, and end by telling Paul S that if he wishes to pursue those concerns, we should do so at my blog (January 18, 2009, 3:26 pm). Again, I demonstrate clear desire to stay on topic and avoid thread derailing.

Ebonmuse returns, does not answer my question, and instead, rehashing something from another thread, presupposes he knew what my response to his answer would have been (January 18, 2009, 3:57 pm).

Earlier in this thread, Penguin_Factory made what is IMO the thread-winning comment, completely relevant to Ebonmuse's strategy here: "Personally, I'm always wary of ascribing any motivations to other people, because they're usually wrong" (January 17, 2009, 3:35 pm). In fact, Ebonmuse's presupposition was wrong, but you'll just have to accept my word on that. I reply showing frustration with the repeated belittling, the masquerading of presupposition as cogent argument, and with Ebonmuse's impolite refusal to finish the engagement he started. I take a counter-jab of my own, reminding Ebonmuse that he takes a jaundiced view of people who rehash stuff from old threads (January 18, 2009, 4:41 pm).

mikespeir engages me, pestering me to answer my own question when I stated clearly to Paul S that such wasn't going to happen (January 18, 2009, 5:15 pm). OMGF salutes Ebonmuse for belittling me (January 18, 2009, 5:17 pm). Teleprompter engages others and me with a thoughtful comment as usual. Libby engages me indirectly, answering Ebonmuse's question (January 19, 2009, 5:27 pm). I address mikespeir, I address Libby, and I agree with Teleprompter (January 19, 2009, 8:36 pm).

mikespeir replies, for the second time, badgering me to answer the question I asked Ebonmuse (January 19, 2009, 9:59 pm). Jim C. engages me on tangential topics related to Paul S's tangential topics (January 19, 2009, 11:47 pm). I decline, to demonstrate clear desire to stay on topic and avoid thread derailing.

Chet responds to my reminder by belittling my English, then charging me of not answering his question, when I actually did answer one of them (January 20, 2009, 12:03 am).

Ebonmuse returns with nothing positive to say whatsoever, further presupposing things about my argument, even to the point of writing hypothetical responses to his presupposition of my argument (January 20, 2009, 12:05 am). Ebonmuse promptly and directly answers MS (Quixote)'s question (January 20, 2009, 12:59 am).

I reply, and to mikespeir I restate my refusal to finish Ebonmuse's argument with other people. I banter some more with Chet about his indecision, and I answer his question exactly as he stated it two times. I criticize Ebonmuse's strategy and inform him that his initial presupposition was wrong (January 20, 2009, 3:48 am). mikespeir replies with further antagonization when I have made clear my disinterest in pursuing Ebonmuse's argument with him (January 20, 2009, 8:17 am).

Paul S responds and claims he did not ask what he did ask, because his question was rhetorical (January 20, 2009, 3:33 pm). I respond in detail when I shouldn't have, because as I'd previously stated, Paul S's questions were thread drift, and up to this point I deflected three comments whose answering would have influenced the derailing of the thread (January 20, 2009, 4:43 pm).

Anon pops in with a keen and witty observation: "...we can always keep trying to get inside each other's minds. That's always a hoot!" (January 20, 2009, 11:38 pm). I get quite a kick out of this and reply positively to Anon (January 21, 2009, 2:09 am).

mikespeir replies again in spite of four previous refusals to continue with him (January 21, 2009, 10:13 am). Chet comes back with cussing, and denies asking the very question he asked, then clarifies said question (January 21, 2009, 2:42 pm). I reply, again telling mikespeir that I'm not going to finish Ebonmuse's argument with other people.

I address Chet's comments, and ask if he's sure that this new, rephrased question is the exact question he wants me to answer. I state that if it is, perhaps I'll answer it (January 21, 2009, 5:56 pm).

mikespeir replies again, completely irreverent of my clear attempts to refuse his engagements and clearly in an antagonistic manner (January 21, 2009, 8:34 pm). Chet replies and denies claims that he previously stated he wouldn't be talking to me anymore, calls me a buffoon, and takes more jabs at my English (January 21, 2009, 11:44 pm). Ebonmuse replies to BruceA and says the Bible, "specifically says we should fear God because he is terrible and vengeful" (January 21, 2009, 11:09 pm).

I reply, quoting Chet's previous claim of not talking to me anymore, and suggest humility as an optional response. For the fifth time, I tell mikespeir that I'm not going to give in to his badgering. I reply to Ebonmuse, claiming he committed a quote-mine, then asking for the verse he had in mind that specifically states what he stated (January 22, 2009, 4:22 am). Ebonmuse responds by calling me a troll looking for attention (January 22, 2009, 7:54 am).

mikespeir returns and, six transactions later, finally gets and accepts my hint (January 22, 2009, 8:23 am). I breathe a sigh of relief.

Chet returns, and under the presupposition that he knows my motives for not wanting to answer him, calls me an evasive troll (January 22, 2009, 10:33 am). OMGF buddies up with Chet as usual (January 22, 2009, 10:41 am). mikespeir returns to antagonize me some more, and also presupposes he knows my motives for being silent, and further belittles me (January 22, 2009, 11:43 am). OMGF takes another jab (January 22, 2009, 12:16 pm).

I return and state to mikespeir my reasoning for refusing to answer Chet's question, namely that discussion with Chet has proven increasingly unfruitful, distilling down to Chet cussing, insulting, name-calling and saying he's not talking to me anymore. I reply to Ebonmuse, asking him to justify his quote-mine, and to produce the verse from scripture which justifies his earlier comment (January 22, 2009, 1:18 pm).

mikespeir returns with nothing to say that relates to the OP or the actual arguments (January 22, 2009, 2:19 pm). OMGF returns and also takes a stab at psychoanalyzing me (January 22, 2009, 2:44 pm). mikespeir and OMGF cuddle up and tease me some more (January 22, 2009, 3:42 pm, January 22, 2009, 4:06 pm). I return to state I'm done with the nonsense, and that I would return with one final comment to this thread (January 22, 2009, 4:41 pm).

KShep pops into the thread, says absolutely nothing relating to the OP, brings up past issues from closed threads, then hops on the ad hominem bandwagon (January 22, 2009, 10:10 pm). Chet takes another jab (January 22, 2009, 11:31 pm). Ebonmuse says nothing about KShep reintroducing old issues into new threads, nor a peep about anyone else's personal insults.

BruceA returns and politely backs me up on the quote-mine charge (January 22, 2009, 5:02 pm). MS (Quixote) disputes BruceA, but apparently isn't concerned about the quote-mine (January 22, 2009, 10:22 pm). BruceA holds his ground, further asking how to resolve the paradox the quote-mine raised, and politely informs Ebonmuse that indeed, verse 7 does not support verse 5 (January 23, 2009, 1:36 am). Ebonmuse claims the verse was an "odd juxtaposition" and provides zero explanation for why he only quoted the part of the paragraph that supported his point in the first place, while excluding the part that directly challenged his point. BruceA responds (January 23, 2009, 10:58 am).

NOTES:

A quote-mine occurs when material that ostensibly bolsters position X is taken out of context. A tell-tale characteristic of quote-mining is the exlusion of exposition in the same text which is reasonably construable as at odds with position X. Ebonmuse did exactly this by cutting Jesus' paragraph in half and omitting verse 7, which was exposition in the same text that was at odds with Ebonmuse's position. Ebonmuse's attempted defense is also a red herring, because whether the verses are oddly juxtaposed or not neither excuses nor explains the fact that Ebonmuse quoted only the part of the paragraph the supported his point, while ignoring subsequent verses in the same paragraph that directly challenge his point.

To answer Chet's question, reasonable belief is based on love when we act from love as opposed to fear. Being moral only so that we might escape punishment is self-serving, and true religion cannot be founded upon self-serving belief systems. We shouldn’t love others because our religion, our mom, or our government tells us to. We should love others because it alleviates genuine privation and suffering in the lives of our fellow beings. Not incidentally, selfish, fear-based religion perfectly describes the rigid and loveless religion of the Pharisees, which Jesus criticized for its undue and morbid focus on the fear of punishment and condemnation. But a reasonable believer is not unduly or morbidly focused on the fear of punishment and condemnation, for reasonable believers believe that forgiveness exists. And a central tenet of reasonable belief is that there is no condemnation for those who ask for forgiveness. So in fact, it's not that I didn't have an answer to Chet. And I had a cogent response to Chet's question the whole damned time. Rather, as I stated, I see no value in debating with an irrational child who resorts to insults and cussing when losing patience.

My own feelings, as well as other people's expressed reactions to typical discussion between myself, Chet, mikespeir and OMGF, have made me realize how annoying these little tangos are to the rest of the community here. Yet, when I take clear effort to avoid them, I get heckled for evading. What's a rational person to do?

I asked Ebon a very simple question - not Libby, not mikespeir, not Paul S, not the trashman or the prep cook, but Ebonmuse. Ebonmuse spends four comments belittling me and presupposing he knew where I would go with my argument. Had Ebonmuse simply answered the damned question, all of this might have been avoided. Yet, strangely, it's all my fault because I refused to argue Ebonmuse's point with other people, and because I wanted to avoid further draining conversation with Chet. So, I'm the evasive troll, and of course, Ebonmuse, Chet, OMGF, Paul S, and mikespeir's incessant badgering of over six comments had nothing to do with it. They somehow imagine I think I won, when the debate could never even start because Ebonmuse simply eschewed the first question I asked him, a question that I asked him only after he engaged me.

I've learned enough about Chet, OMGF and now mikespeir to know that debating with them is about as productive as washing clothes in soiled petroleum. And you all continue with your pseudo-Freudian, self-righteous, pontificating psychoanalyses of me and what you presuppose I fear most in life.

This is of course wildly off-topic, not to mention rude and immature. But in all honesty, my feelings aren't at all hurt. I got some uproarious laughter out of this one, and learned quite a bit about you people along the way.

And presuppostion, ad hominem horsepuckey, quote-mining and mind-reading pass for rationalism around here.

What a joke.

That's certainly possible, although the same juxtaposition occurs in Matthew 10:28-31, so if they were originally separate sayings, they must have been combined before the gospels were written (unless Matthew is Luke's source for this, or vice versa). Still, whoever combined these sayings must have recognized the paradox they created.

Also, we can see from other passages that Matthew and Luke were not hesitant to rewrite or rearrange material if it didn't fit their overall message. So the fact that they left "fear him" next to "do not be afraid" suggests that they intended to keep the paradox, regardless of how it arose.

I don't see any way to resolve the paradox of "fear him" in verse 5 and "do not be afraid" in verse 7 unless it's understood as saying that if you get past your mundane fears and trust him, you will have nothing to fear. But this is probably not the place for that debate.

Oh, if only, cl. If only.

Specifically, this passage says to fear God because of his power.

I think Ebon's right on this one Bruce. Jesus specifically says to fear him that can use the power you mention to cast into hell. The plain reading of a text is always to be preferred, and this one does not seem to offer rationale for interpreting the verse any differently, including the context. Moreover, the underlying Greek supports his conclusion, in addition to the multitude of similar passages and the overwhelming tenor of Scripture as a whole.

Your context of moving beyond fear is appropriate, but there's a real fear to move beyond :)