Do YEC ministries employ the same rhetorical tactics as Richard Dawkins?

[fmiddel]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

Despite my incomplete understanding of “Raka”, I still think the broader point stands. This might be similar to how Lewis raised some issues in his “Abolition of Man”. Attributing moral failure to somebody is at least acknowledging their responsibility and possibility of change … their humanity if you will. Call me dishonest, and there is hope for me that I can change. Call me mentally deficient or pathologically afflicted, and then you have denied my hope of change or removed it to therapists or other professionals, consigning me to be the object of their fashioning and according to the ideology of the day.

From what I understand, “fool” in Hebrew and Aramaic cultures referred to moral, not mental, incapacity.

“The fool says in his heart, there is no God.”

This is not a stupid person. Neither is it an atheist.

Rather, it is the immoral person who, regardless of vocal profession, acts as if God does not exist and there is no consequence to his actions.

The atheist says (often loudly), “there is no God!”

The morally deficient says this in his heart.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

That makes good sense, fmiddel. Thanks. I understand the descriptive word: “simple” may mean similar things.

Again, I think the broader point I originally made still stands.

[OldTimer]

@fmiddel

“The fool says in his heart, there is no God.”

The NABAL says in his heart gives us several clues:

(1) Remember the foolish man Nabal who wouldn’t feed David and his men? Ancient Hebrews made this automatic linkage between the man named Nabal and the meaning of his name.

(2) “Says in his heart” should be understood in contrast to “says with his mouth/tongue”.

This scripture “The fool says in his heart, there is no God.” gets applied often to atheists today but that is OPPOSITE of its meaning. The NABAL is the one who claims to believe in God but he makes decisions and chooses to do sinful things *even though he knows full well that YHWH will see what he does and judge him for it."

So the atheist is not in mind here [Of course, it is difficult to find references to atheists in the scriptures] but the theist who nevertheless lives and thinks AS IF there is no YHWH to see his sin. That is truly a fool!

Ironically, those who seems to most love hurling this scripture at today’s atheists are the very types of legalist hypocrites that the scripture was talking about.

P.S. I see now that Fmiddel captured this meaning quite well.

[OldTimer]

@Christy

I just studied this word in a semantics class. It’s an ‘expressive,’ which is a word that does not refer to anything in the real world and has no truth value. It’s a word used to convey (rather than describe) the speaker’s attitude, beliefs, or feelings. Like “Ouch!” or “Oops” or most swear words. In the case of raka, Jesus used the Aramaic word, presumably because there was no equivalent in Koine Greek.

Are you implying that you believe Jesus was preaching in Koine Greek?

(I ask simply for clarification. I’m not looking for a debate or a new thread topic.)

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

No. I should have said Matthew had no equivalent expression to record the one Jesus evidently used. I think there is pretty good evidence that Greek was the lingua franca of the multi-lingual region of his ministry and Jesus probably did preach some in Koine and probably employed a good deal of code mixing and switching.

[OldTimer]

@Christy

No. I should have said Matthew had no equivalent expression to record the one Jesus evidently used. I think there is pretty good evidence that Greek was the lingua franca of the multi-lingual region of his ministry and Jesus probably did preach some in Koine and probably employed a good deal of code mixing and switching.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought you might have intended something along that line.

I’ve not tried to update my knowledge of where scholars presently stand on the Aramaic vs. Greek issue. I’m probably a reflection of my era in tending to thinking in Aramaic terms, especially in defying the traditional sermons about “big rock” vs. “little stone” in the Petros/petra exegesis about Peter. The paranoia of evangelicals about Peter getting too much supremacy has always amused me.