Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: Veto Roley's "fool" problem analyzed!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    ... From: Robert Baty Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:00 PM To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com Subject: [coCBanned] Veto Roley s fool problem analyzed! Let s
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Robert Baty
      Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:00 PM
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [coCBanned] Veto Roley's "fool" problem analyzed!

      Let's first remember to always consider the specific context in which Veto Roley is playing out his little diversion.

      That is, Veto Roley boasted that he could prove that

      > the Psalm 14:1 statement that

      >> "the fool sayeth in his heart
      >> there is no God"

      > means, is properly interpreted
      > to mean that

      >> "all atheists are fools".

      Veto Roley hasn't come close to proving up that claim.

      Veto Roley most recently wrote:

      > You (Robert) write, for instance
      > that I (Veto)

      >> "appear to simply post
      >> commentaries agreeing
      >> with me (Robert) that
      >> Psalm 14:1..."

      > suggesting that the commentaries
      > do not say that an atheist is a fool.

      I did not suggest that the commentaries

      > "do not say that an atheist
      > is a fool".

      Veto has offered his own commentary claiming that, and he is welcome to post a thousand commentaries that say

      > "an atheist is a fool".

      That, however, is simply not evidence in support of Veto's boast that

      > the Psalm 14:1 statement that

      >> "the fool sayeth in his heart
      >> there is no God"

      > means, is properly interpreted
      > to mean that

      >> "all atheists are fools".

      Veto Roley can even try to quote a hundred other passages of scripture which he thinks proves that atheists are some kind of fool. Such evidence, however, will not prove Veto Roley's boast that

      > the Psalm 14:1 statement that

      >> "the fool sayeth in his heart
      >> there is no God"

      > means, is properly interpreted
      > to mean that

      >> "all atheists are fools".

      Surely, a man of Veto Roley's stature knows and understands that just because somewhere else there is proof that an atheist is some kind of fool does not prove that

      > the Psalm 14:1 statement that

      >> "the fool sayeth in his heart
      >> there is no God"

      > means, is properly interpreted
      > to mean that

      >> "all atheists are fools".

      That's just Hermeneutics 101, or so I have been told.

      Veto writes, wanting to discuss a religious commentary:

      > Let's take the one, Adam
      > Clarke's, that appears, on
      > the surface to agree with
      > you.

      Sounds familiar!

      Any agreement with me by anyone Veto Roley touts, according to Veto Roley, is going to be considered only "apparent".

      Two can play that game!

      Veto Roley didn't give any evidence that Adam Clarke even considered what is in dispute here.

      What Veto Roley did reference as to Adam Clarke indicates the agreement with me is not only "apparent on the surface" but "real" in substance.

      Adam Clarke is referenced as discussing something about the "fool" of Psalm 14:1.

      That's what I have been contending for; that Psalm 14:1 has as its subject "the fool" and is telling us something about "the fool".

      Psalm 14:1 is not telling us that "all atheists are fools".

      Veto Roley writes, indicating he's determined to miss the issue:

      > (O)ur discussion is not about
      > classes other than professed
      > atheists.

      The discussion I am involved in is about the principles of sound reasoning such as have been discussed and documented, in part, using Psalm 14:1 as its text.

      Perhaps Veto Roley should consider working on his understanding of the principles of sound reasoning independent of Psalm 14:1 which appears to sensitive for him to objectively, reasonably consider.

      Perhaps if Veto Roley can find some legitimate authorities, alive for possible direct testimony, that understand the principles of sound reasoning and the issue I have been discussing using Psalm 14:1 as the text, then we will see if Veto has anything to rebut my simple, fundamental analysis which reaches the conclusion that

      > the Psalm 14:1 statement that

      >> "the fool sayeth in his heart
      >> there is no God"

      > DOES NOT MEAN, IS NOT
      > PROPERLY INTERPRETED
      > TO MEAN that

      >> "all atheists are fools".

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty



      -----Original Message-----
      From: Veto F. Roley
      Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:58 AM
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty continues to prove his irrationality aruging against a pri

      Batty,

      There are solid, good reasons that you got your nickname of "Batty," since you prove yourself of being irrational.

      You write, for instance that I "appear to simply post commentaries agreeing with me that Psalm 14:1," suggesting that the commentaries do not say that an atheist is a fool. Yet, it appears, you have not read the commentaries.

      Let's take the one, Adam Clarke's, that appears, on the surface to agree with you. Adam Clark writes about the Hebrew word "nabal", "The word is not to be taken in the strict sense in which we use the term atheist, that is, one who denies the being of a God, or confounds him with matter. 1. There have been some, not many, who have denied the existence of God. 2. There are others who, without absolutely denying the Divine existence, deny his providence; that is, they acknowledge a Being of infinite power, &c., but give him nothing to do, and no world to govern. 3. There are others, and they are very numerous, who, while they profess to acknowledge both, deny them in their heart, and live as if they were persuaded there was no God either to punish or reward."

      What Clarke says here is that the term "nabal" -- which is translated "fool" -- is not limited to the professed atheist. And, I agree with him on his point. Instead of being limited to the professed atheist, he says nabal refers to the following groups of people:

      1) professed atheists and agnostics
      2) Deists -- and you need to understand the religious philosophies of Clarke's time when deism was held by many people, including Thomas Jefferson Basically, Deism states that God created the universe, set the laws of nature in motion and then retreated to heaven, having little concern or oversight about matters in the universe.
      3) those who live life as if God did not exist, even if they verbally acknowledge His existence AND His real presence on the earth.

      I also agree that these three classes are included in the term "nabal" and have stated so in the past. But, Batty, our discussion is not about classes other than professed atheists. Just as all practical atheists -- people who live as if there is no God regardless of their profession of His existence -- are fools, particularly are all professed atheists. Clarke is not saying that the professed atheist is not a fool, but that the term fool covers more than just the professed atheist.

      Or, we can go to John Calvin, "I am content to follow the more generally received interpretation, which is, that all profane persons, who have cast off all fear of God and abandoned themselves to iniquity, are convicted of madness." This is the same argument being made by Clarke. And Calvin's description of the fool -- someone who has "cast off all fear of God and abandoned themselves to iniquity" -- certainly applies to the professed atheist. Who can argue that the atheist is someone who has "cast off all fear of God and abandoned themselves to iniquity."? The atheist is so unafraid of God that he does what few people would do -- publically testifying that God does not exist. Further, since there is no iniquity, no sin, greater than denying the existence of his Creator, the atheist also abandons himself to inquity, chosing to do what seems right in his eyes rather than submitting to the Lordship of his Creator. Calvin, then, describes the atheist as
      being a fool.

      Or, do you suppose Charles Spurgeon agrees with you? "The Atheist is the fool preeminently, and a fool universally." Maybe, I misquoted Matthew Henry and he agrees with you, "The sinner here described is an atheist." Or, did I miscopy Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset & David Brown, "The practical atheism and total and universal depravity of the wicked, with their hatred to the good, are set forth."

      Batty, the atheist is a fool for saying in his heart that there is no God

      Veto

      ---------------------------------------------------

      Posted by: "Robert Baty"
      rlbaty@...
      �

      rlbaty50



      Wed Oct�15,�2008 4:49�pm (PDT)


      Veto Roley again misrepresents the issue in dispute.



      Veto Roley's attempt to reason was incorrect, as previously noted,
      because, for all his effort he failed to measure up to his boast
      regarding Psalm 14:1.



      Even now, for all his effort, he appears to simply post commentaries
      agreeing with me that Psalm 14:1 tells us something about the "fools"
      referenced therein.



      The statement in Psalm 14:1 that



      > the fool sayeth in his heart

      > there is no God



      does not logically convert, mean, or interpret to



      > all atheists are fools.



      Veto can go anywhere else he wishes to try and make an argument that
      all atheists are fools, but for all his effort it won't make Psalm 14:1
      say so!



      That's my unrebutted position, after many failed efforts by Veto Roley and others.



      Sincerely,

      Robert Baty



      -----Original Message-----

      From: Veto F. Roley

      Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:28 AM

      To: coCBanned@yahoogrou ps.com

      Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty continues to prove his irrationality aruging against a pri



      Batty,



      You claim that my reasoning is incorrect. But, you never give a valid
      argument that the atheist is not a fool for denying, if the Christian
      God exists, a God who will either, as some believe, destroy the
      non-believing soul at judgment or, as the orthodox position holds and I
      believe, banish the unbelieving soul for eternity to a hell prepared to
      punish Satan and his angels. So, prove to me that the atheist is NOT a
      fool for denying a God that will, at best, destroy him or, at worst,
      banish him to an eternity where the worm does not die nor the fire does
      not lessen.



      As you are proving that the atheist is not a fool for denying God, you can also prove the following claims as well...



      That it is NOT foolish to cheat the IRS (and, as examples, you can use
      the cases of Wesley Snipes and David Allen Coe -- the IRS still owns
      Coe's song catalog despite the fact that royalties have long since
      covered his tax and penalty debt -- or any other taxpayer who has tried
      to cheat the IRS and found out the IRS doesn't play...)



      That it is NOT foolish to go up to someone who is larger than you and
      who has better fighting skills than you do and challenge them to a
      fight (here you can use as an example the case of Jorge Lugo who found
      out he COULD go through a plate glass window after throwing a bucket of
      ice at Charles Barkley)



      That it is NOT foolish to abuse drugs (to support this assertion, you
      could mention that 28,723 people in the U.S. died from drug abuse --
      both legal and illegal drugs -- in 2003)



      That it is NOT foolish to smoke tobacco (to support this assertion, you
      could mention that around 450,000 people in the U.S. died from
      tobacco-related illnesses and cancers)



      Batty, you have said before that the "fool" referred to in Psalms 14:1
      does not refer to an atheist, that nabal should be understood in some
      different manner. But, who are we to trust on this matter of
      interpretation? You, who have no credibility on anything of note, or
      John Calvin?



      "The fool hath said. As the Hebrew word nabal signifies not only a
      fool, but also a perverse, vile, and contemptible person, it would not
      have been unsuitable to have translated it so in this place; yet I am
      content to follow the more generally received interpretation, which is,
      that all profane persons, who have cast off all fear of God and
      abandoned themselves to iniquity, are convicted of madness. David does
      not bring against his enemies the charge of common foolishness, but
      rather inveighs against the folly and insane hardihood of those whom
      the world accounts eminent for their wisdom. We commonly see that those
      who, in the estimation both of themselves and of others, highly excel
      in sagacity and wisdom, employ their cunning in laying snares, and
      exercise the ingenuity of their minds in despising and mocking God. It
      is therefore important for us, in the first place, to know, that
      however much the world applaud these crafty and scoffing characters,

      who allow themselves to indulge to any extent in wickedness, yet the
      Holy Spirit condemns them as being fools; for there is no stupidity
      more brutish than forgetfulness of God." (John Calvin's Commentary on
      Psalms - Volume 1 -- http://www.ccel. org/ccel/ calvin/calcom08. xx.i.html)



      Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no credibility on anything of note, or Charles Spurgeon?



      "The fool. The Atheist is the fool preeminently, and a fool
      universally. He would not deny God if he were not a fool by nature, and
      having denied God it is no marvel that he becomes a fool in practice.
      Sin is always folly, and as it is the height of sin to attack the very
      existence of the Most High, so it is also the greatest imaginable
      folly. To say there is no God is to belie the plainest evidence, which
      is obstinacy; to oppose the common consent of mankind, which is
      stupidity; to stifle consciousness, which is madness. If the sinner
      could by his atheism destroy the God whom he hates there were some
      sense, although much wickedness, in his infidelity; but as denying the
      existence of fire does not prevent its burning a man who is in it, so
      doubting the existence of God will not stop the Judge of all the earth
      from destroying the rebel who breaks his laws; nay, this atheism is a
      crime which much provokes heaven, and will bring down terrible
      vengeance on

      the fool who indulges it. The proverb says, "A fool's tongue cuts his
      own throat," and in this instance it kills both soul and body for ever:
      would to God the mischief stopped even there, but alas! one fool makes
      hundreds, and a noisy blasphemer spreads his horrible doctrines as
      lepers spread the plague." (C.H. Spurgeons's The Treasury of David -- http://www.studylig ht.org/com/ tod/view. cgi?book= ps&chapter= 014&verse= 001)



      Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no credibility on anything of note, or Adam Clarke?



      "Verse 1. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. ] lbn
      nabal, which we render fool, signifies an empty fellow, a contemptible
      person, a villain. One who has a muddy head and an unclean heart; and,
      in his darkness and folly, says in his heart, "There is no God."And
      none," says one, "but a fool would say so." The word is not to be taken
      in the strict sense in which we use the term atheist, that is, one who
      denies the being of a God, or confounds him with matter. 1. There have
      been some, not many, who have denied the existence of God. 2. There are
      others who, without absolutely denying the Divine existence, deny his
      providence; that is, they acknowledge a Being of infinite power,
      &c., but give him nothing to do, and no world to govern. 3. There
      are others, and they are very numerous, who, while they profess to
      acknowledge both, deny them in their heart, and live as if they were
      persuaded there was no God either to punish or reward." (Clarke's

      Commentary -- http://www.godrules .net/library/ clarke/clarkepsa 14.htm)



      Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no credibility on anything of note, or Matthew Henry?



      "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. The sinner here
      described is an atheist, one that saith there is no Judge or Governor
      of the world, no Providence ruling over the affairs of men. He says
      this in his heart. He cannot satisfy himself that there is none, but
      wishes there were none, and pleases himself that it is possible there
      may be none; he is willing to think there is none. This sinner is a
      fool; he is simple and unwise, and this is evidence of it: he is wicked
      and profane, and this is the cause." (Matthew Henry's Concise
      Commentary on the Whole Bible -- http://bible. christiansunite. com/mhcc. cgi?b=Ps& c=14)



      Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
      credibility on anything of note, or Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset &
      David Brown?



      "The practical atheism and total and universal depravity of the wicked,
      with their hatred to the good, are set forth. Yet, as they dread God's
      judgments when He vindicates His people, the Psalmist prays for His
      delivering power.



      1. Sinners are termed "fools," because they think and act contrary to
      right reason (Genesis 34:7, Joshua 7:15, Psalms 39:8, 74:18,22)."
      (Commentary Critical and Explanatory

      on the Whole Bible -- http://www.biblestu dytools.net/ Commentaries/ JamiesonFaussetB rown/jfb. cgi?book= ps&chapter= 14)



      If God exists, the atheist is a fool for saying there is no God. Anyone
      who claims to be a Christian and argues otherwise is likewise a fool...



      Veto

      "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." --Muhammad Ali

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.