tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post3211460840673607211..comments2024-03-29T10:48:38.142+00:00Comments on Coppola Comment: The foolish SamaritanFrances Coppolahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-53284899883469733782013-03-24T23:34:49.426+00:002013-03-24T23:34:49.426+00:00This is a fantastic blog.
Thanks
RobThis is a fantastic blog.<br />Thanks<br />RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-12110639106414963822012-09-19T07:14:02.875+01:002012-09-19T07:14:02.875+01:00I like Mitchell and Webb's take. www.youtube.c...I like Mitchell and Webb's take. www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIVB3DdRgqUAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-10649902934483850582012-09-16T17:53:43.588+01:002012-09-16T17:53:43.588+01:00Read that a while ago!Read that a while ago!Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-57223862961365272052012-09-16T15:13:01.047+01:002012-09-16T15:13:01.047+01:00Done.
A good paper. Though perhaps a bit limited ...Done.<br /><br />A good paper. Though perhaps a bit limited in view. <br /><br />Now if I may suggest : http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2011/11/moneyness.html<br /><br />Peace<br /><br />TFMotley Foolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06902761012772262091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-24646225917785629662012-09-16T13:18:29.687+01:002012-09-16T13:18:29.687+01:00@Nickelsaver & Frances:
You need some counsel...@Nickelsaver & Frances:<br /><br />You need some counseling, both of you. Seriously.<br /><br />@Richard:<br /><br />You take yourself too seriously. And FOFOA. And ANOTHER. And FOA. Seriously.<br /><br />Take care\Dante :-)Dante_Euhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13208538005188466169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-59601447317788348622012-09-16T08:51:49.836+01:002012-09-16T08:51:49.836+01:00There are lot of analyses of 1 Tim 2:8-15 which al...There are lot of analyses of 1 Tim 2:8-15 which all say pretty much the same - namely that if we are to learn from it, it must not be taken out of context. Here's a rather good example:<br /><br />http://vineyardcolumbus.org/_media/uploads/files/VLI/resources/Paul_and_the_New_Roman_Women_at_Ephesus_by_Steve_Robbins.pdf<br /><br />Actually I think this passage has some VERY important things to say to the church and society of today, which we miss completely if we focus only on Paul's supposed prohibition of female authority and ignore the historical and cultural context. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-48701994395873835602012-09-16T08:26:04.285+01:002012-09-16T08:26:04.285+01:00Your first point supports my argument that we are ...Your first point supports my argument that we are to study and form our own conclusions, and that Jesus' parables are capable of more than one interpretation. It does not mean that your interpretation is more valid than mine.<br /><br />The culture argument is absolutely applicable. This letter concerns the practical difficulties of running a church in a pagan culture in which women had sexual authority over men in a religious context. We need to consider what similar or equivalent practical difficulties the church of our time experiences, and therefore what the appropriate behaviour of men and women should be in our time. Simply swallowing whole Paul's practical advice to a church leader of his time is misuse of Scripture. <br /><br />Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-73062407177712846162012-09-16T07:49:57.084+01:002012-09-16T07:49:57.084+01:00As to the parables, Jesus defined their purpose in...As to the parables, Jesus defined their purpose in Matthew 13:13-15. "That in seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand". We see a similar motif in Revelation chapters 2 and 3, except that we know exactly how one is able to have understanding, "For him who has ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches". So we understand that, despite what the words appear to say at face value, there is more to them than the natural man can grasp through his own intellect. The Spirit must reveal it to the reader.<br /><br />As for 1 Tim 2:8-15, the culture argument is bogus.<br /><br />1) Paul reflects back to Eve in the Garden. There was no culture. It was just Adam and Eve. And if you know the story, Eve was deceived by the serpent. Adam was not deceived. He made a conscious choice to do what he knew was wrong. This goes to the difference between men and women, and how they were fashioned by God. It is not a value statement, but merely a matter of fact. Both sinned, and going forward, both men and women are sinners.<br /><br />2) Paul is the single most important New Testament author with regard to Church doctrine. But like every other author, He did not write of his own accord. He wrote as he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," 2 Tim 3:16<br />If Paul set out to teach a doctrine that was only applicable to the Church in the first century, then 2 Tim 3:16 is not true. Furthermore, if 2 Tim 3:16 is not true, then who is to argue that any of it is true. In which case I would ask, how is it then a "lamp unto your feet, and a light unto your path"?Nickelsaverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17252539946241943478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-21338529307799646232012-09-14T04:30:01.726+01:002012-09-14T04:30:01.726+01:00You do not hold a monopoly on the interpretation o...You do not hold a monopoly on the interpretation of Jesus' parables. We are supposed to study scripture and draw our own conclusions - which is what I have done. My interpretation is as valid as yours.<br /><br />On your other matter; the letters of Paul should not be taken out of their historical context, either. I suggest you go and find out something about the culture and (pagan) ritual practices of the place Timothy was working in. Then you will understand why Paul placed such restrictions on women. <br /><br />I do not "enjoy teaching Scripture". That was not the point of this post. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-42204524772603403762012-09-14T04:10:02.524+01:002012-09-14T04:10:02.524+01:00This is an absolutely ridiculousness twisting of t...This is an absolutely ridiculousness twisting of the teaching of the story of the Good Samaritan.<br /><br />The story has nothing to do with the means to care for the man, and everything to do with the the motivation of the heart of the Good Samaritan contrasted against the the heart and motivation of the men that did nothing.<br /><br />The hypocrisy of the Pharisees is being illustrated. These supposed holy men of Israel where thought by the Jewish people to be the Most Holy and worthy of a Jews. In fact, it was thought that if a Pharisee could not make it to heaven, no man could. Jesus contrasts these men against a Samaritan. The Samaritan's where considered half breads, and not even Jewish. The common belief was that they were outside of any chance for redemption. <br /><br />So the moral of the story is that, it isn't your position as a Jew that God sees. It is your heart. And the motivation of the heart is evident in ones actions.<br /><br />This is not a story about money.<br /><br />__________________<br /><br /><br />On a separate note. You seem to enjoy teaching scripture. But what does scripture have to say about that?<br /><br /> "I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control." 1 Tim 2:8-15<br /><br /><br /><br />Nickelsaverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17252539946241943478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-9065051794516600782012-09-13T23:25:10.052+01:002012-09-13T23:25:10.052+01:00Sorry, typo alert. "Productive investment dri...Sorry, typo alert. "Productive investment driven by home" makes no sense....should be "productive investment driven by HOPE", of course! Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-23244104010584630212012-09-13T23:22:52.467+01:002012-09-13T23:22:52.467+01:00My general moral stance would be that actions may ...My general moral stance would be that actions may be evil but people are not. However, I maybe should clarify my comment that "hoarding is evil". The term "evil" is a strongly negative value judgement, which is not really helpful. Can I refer you to my answer to MrQBlank, above? I said it was not so much the act as the attitude that was the problem. Hoarding is driven by fear, productive investment by home. If your fear leads you to hoard wealth to the detriment of others, then I would regard that as morally wrong - but I understand why you might do it. So might I, if I was scared enough, even though I believe it to be wrong. We all do wrong things when we are scared or angry. <br /><br />This brilliant post by Interfluidity discusses the reasons why wealthy people hold on to wealth to the detriment of poorer ones:<br /><br />http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/3487.html<br /><br />I'm afraid I think ignoring collaboration over-simplifies human interaction and leads to serious injustices - for example, where someone considers that an invention or a product is all his own work and ignores or discounts the inputs of others. The worst example of this would, for example, be a wealthy business owner who regards his wealth as being achieved entirely by his own efforts ("I'm a self-made man") and ignores the contribution made by his employees, his shareholders, his customers and the taxpayers who provide his infrastructure (such as roads). I'm afraid this attitude is all too common, and it is poisonous. <br /><br />I think you are wrong that I focus only on the end result. I too look at the process - but we don't agree on how the process works.<br /> Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-76630868682201994842012-09-13T22:12:56.279+01:002012-09-13T22:12:56.279+01:001.The act of hoarding is evil.
2.I hoard.
3.I am n...1.The act of hoarding is evil.<br />2.I hoard.<br />3.I am not evil.<br /><br />Ok, logically possible.<br /><br />Perhaps we can go with. 3. I do evil things but am not evil. A difficult proposition, but perhaps achievable if I do so in ignorance. However I am not doing it in ignorance of your no 1. I disagree with the absolute, 1. So what now?<br /><br />I recall we had a debate about If hoarding harms people. I did not dismiss your arguments due to morals, I dismissed them because I thought they were wrong. I conceded that hoarding could sometimes be detrimental to others. I simply did not agree it was always the case.<br /><br />My use of of the spurious was because I do not wish to debate everything. We can examine the simpler scenario of non-collaboration, was my implication.<br /><br />Collaboration can achieve greater success in certain scenarios, but if one looks closely at the process it is a series of shared Individual advances that is shared. We are simply disagreeing about perspective here. You focus on the end result, I focus on both process and end result.<br /><br />TF Motley Foolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06902761012772262091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-42292261805880081532012-09-13T21:50:02.945+01:002012-09-13T21:50:02.945+01:00These are my morals because that is my chosen spir...These are my morals because that is my chosen spiritual path, not because "God said so".<br /><br />I have not called you evil. <br /><br />I have explained to you numerous times how hoarding harms people. You choose to dismiss those arguments because they challenge your moral stance. <br /><br />Your work, personally, may not involve collaboration - or you may simply not notice the collaboration. Most likely the latter. Nearly everyone's work involves collaboration of some kind with someone. <br /><br />Dismissing my argument as "spurious" does not advance debate. <br /><br />I have read Ayn Rand's serious work. She defined all desirable human interaction as beneficial exchange and dismissed all forms of dependency. In this she was totally and completely wrong, because she excluded the possibility of collaboration to create something greater than can be achieved by an individual working alone. To her, greatness can only be an individual phenomenon, not a collective one. <br /><br /> Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-55298455414686430442012-09-13T21:36:22.830+01:002012-09-13T21:36:22.830+01:00Well. Your founding base of your morality is Chris...Well. Your founding base of your morality is Christian teachings. In other terms : These are my morals and they are right because God said so. <br /><br />You cannot both call me evil for hoarding and say it doesn't apply to me. You will need to choose one.<br /><br />Defensibility? My hoarding gold does nobody any harm. Being forced to do something against your will harms you if you do not comply. How can you even ask the question?<br /><br />Misunderstanding? Nope? I specifically mentioned the products of their production as an input factor. My work may not involve collaboration; spurious as that argument is it may not be relevant.<br /><br />And of course exchange is not the only interaction between humans. I never claimed that to be the case. Oh and you are wrong, she did not claim that, she merely focused on it. Not that I expect you have read her serious work of course. <br /><br />TF <br /><br /> Motley Foolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06902761012772262091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-79348526277360552832012-09-13T21:30:02.877+01:002012-09-13T21:30:02.877+01:00Thing is so did Another and Foa, mistakes galore. ...Thing is so did Another and Foa, mistakes galore. Some low-level BIS insider thought he could predict the future, wrong. Fofoa got all carried away in 2008 and 2009 with excitement, and just repeats the same mistakes, and you and your friends slather over his every word.None of you see you are dreaming of an idealized world, where everyone saves in $60,000 gold.<br />It is a lovely theory, but in the real world, never going to happen.<br /><br />You have no idea how ridiculous you all appear, and you never will, you are so wrapped up in the fallacy. Athrone made a very good point today, about consensus. <br />That is all you seek there, eventually there will be a dozen or so posters, everyone else will have been driven away (Costata RIP, JR got you good and proper).<br />Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-73804967215719172652012-09-13T21:24:33.493+01:002012-09-13T21:24:33.493+01:00I have NEVER resorted to "because God/Jesus s...I have NEVER resorted to "because God/Jesus said so" as an argument. Nor would I. My arguments stand or fall on rationality, and in the end on the rock of moral disagreement. My beliefs stem from my faith. You do not subscribe to that faith, so I do not expect you to adopt the same moral stance - though as I have already said, I consider it reasonable to try to change your mind. <br /><br />I wrote this post because JR had attempted to use one of Jesus's parables to support his arguments, and I wished to expose the wrongness of his claim. To do this, I examined the parable itself and other teachings by Jesus. At no point have I claimed that the moral position of Jesus according to his teachings should apply to people who, like you, are atheists. In fact I specifically said that for non-Christians, Jesus' teachings are foolish.<br /><br />I do consider hoarding evil. But that does not mean that I consider the people who hoard to be evil. An action may be evil even when done with the best intentions.<br /><br />In what way is my moral position that "hoarding is evil" less defensible than your moral position "forcing me to do anything I don't want to do is evil"?<br /><br />Regarding production - you misunderstand again, if you think that your production comes only from your own effort, time, energy etc. It comes also from your collaborative work with others and your use of the products of their production. Exchange is not the only economic interaction between humans (this is another of the weaknesses in Rand's arguments - she did not recognise any form of economic or even social interaction other than mutually beneficial exchange). <br /><br />Why would I use Genesis 41 to "justify" government? It speaks for itself. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-62167596441881606492012-09-13T21:18:22.905+01:002012-09-13T21:18:22.905+01:00I see his blog as a transcript of the path he walk...I see his blog as a transcript of the path he walked. Did he make some mistakes along the way? Sure. Is he human? Yes.<br /><br />The growth in his understanding is what is of interest, along with the clarity in sharing.<br /><br />Thing is though, he realized and corrected those mistakes as he came across them, and This is what you criticize him for?<br /><br />Strange. Motley Foolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06902761012772262091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-18232765291793874602012-09-13T21:05:14.311+01:002012-09-13T21:05:14.311+01:00Frances
A reasoned argument that resorts to, &quo...Frances<br /><br />A reasoned argument that resorts to, "because god/jesus said so", is a oxymoron.<br /><br />And moral arguments are a 'force' since by implication, if your moral position is in the right, the person not doing what you proscribe is wrong/evil. Nobody wants to be considered evil. <br /><br />Neither I nor Rand, I think, framed it this way; that production occurs in a vacuum. Of course others produce too and exchange what they produce with you. That is the whole point.<br /><br />This support, is mutually beneficial exchange.<br /><br />However what I produce comes from my own effort, my time, my energy, my applied thought. Nobody else can lay claim to that. All they can lay claim too is perhaps providing me with tools to ease my production, but those would have to be bought with earlier production.<br /><br />I did not not misunderstand. I was simply curious how you would alter your moral absolute that "hoarding is evil" to fit your preconceived ideas. I was also curious if you would use it to justify government. That was the reason I chose to use this story.<br /><br />TF Motley Foolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06902761012772262091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-39788161958640152852012-09-13T20:53:57.660+01:002012-09-13T20:53:57.660+01:00I wouldn't want to sully Frances's blog wi...I wouldn't want to sully Frances's blog with examples. Just re-read his posts from 2008 to 2010, and most of his end of year posts, all full of end of the world nonsense, and praise for Martin Armstrong and Karl Denninger. Yes, fofoa is just another idiot who has made a good business out of regurgitating someone else's incorrect ideas. Perhaps he's not such an idiot, especially when you look at how little he writes these days. Maybe the book writing takes all of his time? Or something else?<br /><br />Yes, Another didn't see the Chinese support, just as no one sees the ongoing support from the Japanese, the British, and others. He'll still be begging for your money in 20 years time, then maybe 20 years after that something will happen. Most will be dead anyway.Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-60450225776056283982012-09-13T20:53:56.435+01:002012-09-13T20:53:56.435+01:00Thanks, will do. Thanks, will do. Motley Foolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06902761012772262091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-12468531005650120892012-09-13T20:45:00.756+01:002012-09-13T20:45:00.756+01:00I'm afraid I do think FOFOA's predictions ...I'm afraid I do think FOFOA's predictions are pretty bizarre. The hyperinflation theory, for example - it's nicely put together but wrongly founded. Cullen Roche has done the most exhaustive study into hyperinflations and I strongly recommmend you read his paper: <br /><br />http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1799102<br /><br />Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-46993098717679318192012-09-13T20:37:11.887+01:002012-09-13T20:37:11.887+01:00MF,
All I am doing is attempting to influence you...MF,<br /><br />All I am doing is attempting to influence your beliefs and your behaviour by stating my moral position and debating with you. You, of course, do exactly the same - as do all the FOFOA followers. <br /><br />I'm very disturbed by the labels you assign to me and the assumptions you make about my motives. I'm not trying to "force" you to do anything. I'm using reasoned argument (from my moral stance, admittedly, but at least that is an honest position) to try to change your mind, that's all. <br /><br />I do not accept that anyone's "production" is wholly "theirs". That's the extreme Ayn Rand position which even Hayek did not subscribe to. You are only able to produce, and generate a surplus, because you are supported by others. But when others are suffering you want to hold on to your wealth because you believe it is entirely "yours". That is an intellectually contradictory position and one of the main weaknesses in Rand's arguments.<br /><br />You have failed to understand Joseph's position. He was storing grain in his capacity as State treasurer, not on his own behalf. Genesis 41 is a fine example of State intervention to prevent people starving in time of famine. <br /><br />Both the priest and the Levite would have had funds. They were supported by the tithe and Temple offerings.<br /><br /><br /><br />Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-28353975541359771202012-09-13T20:06:32.768+01:002012-09-13T20:06:32.768+01:00Haha, bizarre predictions? Please do share.
Also,...Haha, bizarre predictions? Please do share.<br /><br />Also, curious that there are many posts on why FOA and ANOTHER have been wrong so far. Motley Foolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06902761012772262091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-47272858551102086302012-09-13T20:02:24.968+01:002012-09-13T20:02:24.968+01:00Francis
I disagree. It could be used in that way ...Francis<br /><br />I disagree. It could be used in that way though that is not what the parable is about and the support for that argument from that parable is weak, but not the opposite as you claim.<br /><br />Why? Using moral arguments to force the choices of others, and partake of their production is, I would say, the main theme of socialism/communism. So, your use of such 'arguments' qualified you for that prestigious group in my mind.<br /><br />I am curious where you get the idea that I/we are about looking after ourselves at the expense of others.<br /><br />Fwiw, I'm an atheist. My example was simply to illustrate the contradictory nature of that text.<br /><br />As to Joseph, are you arguing that he only saved up for others and then died of starvation when the 7 lean years came? Is it not possible to look after oneself and others? Is it not more possible to help others during lean times if one has stores? <br /><br />Perhaps this is what JR took from the story of the Samaritan. That before one can wash wounds with wine and oils, and pay for treatment, one must first have such. Something neither the priest nor the Levite likely had.<br /><br />TF Motley Foolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06902761012772262091noreply@blogger.com