I have introduced a new principle though: a truly rhetorical question must lead to a single robust conclusion, and that must agree with the speaker's expectation. — Serving Zion
But I still need to be sure that what I think is right, in fact is right. So far I do not see that there is a case where a rhetorical question is not, in truth, strictly a misuse of language for dramatic effect (iow, "slang"). — Serving Zion
I am a person who, when I discover that others are wrong, I seek out what is right and then I cling to it and I share that knowledge with others. So that is what I am here to do, with regards to a finding I have, that people seem to assume a rhetorical question is not allowed to be challenged. — Serving Zion
Did you read the background to that observation? It shows that a rhetorical question is only effective if the answer to the question supports the speaker's point. In order for a rhetorical question to be effective, any valid answer given to the question must be consistent with the single conclusion that the speaker is drawing by putting the question in the given context. Therefore, it is robust.Why must a truly rhetorical question must lead to a single robust conclusion? — Fooloso4
It is too early for me to know. I think that my answer to it has a potential to challenge the "single robust conclusion" that you were expecting to find, that is "it doesn't" (which is yet possible, if you can lead me to see it).Is this a rhetorical question? — Fooloso4
Hmmm, it looks to me that you have answered the question. If a hearer doesn't agree that the speaker's conclusion is necessarily true for the question, then the speaker's point has become discredited. Therefore it fails to be a robust statement, and is a failure in communication so far as a speaker's objective is to effectively convey knowledge.What is the apodictic connection between a truly rhetorical question and the questioner's expectation? It may be that the "single robust conclusion" one who is asked the question might reach is that the questioner is misguided, and it is likely that this will not agree with the questioner's expectation. — Fooloso4
Yes, they appear to be rhetorical questions. I have already conceded that rhetorical questions are not slang, and are in fact valid constructs of language (albeit, they do carry risk by inviting a reply, even if they might ultimately be found robust after investigation).
In Genesis 3 God asks Adam and Eve a series of questions: “Where are you?”, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”, “What is this you have done?” (3:9-13)
Are these rhetorical questions, iow, "slang"? — Fooloso4
Not at all. In fact, a rhetorical question is not a misuse of language at all, because even if the answer is given, it produces the intended statement:Was God misusing language? — Fooloso4
a well-presented rhetorical question can have more impact than a plain statement — Serving Zion
No, and the purpose appears to be bringing conviction to them for their ignorance of those things.
Was God ignorant of where they are and what they did? — Fooloso4
It is true to say that they might have given any number of answers, but it also is true to say that there was a single robust conclusion regardless of the answer they might give:Note their responses do not lead to a single robust conclusion. — Fooloso4
I would advise to not take such a calculated approach, rather in humble service, allow the truth to manifest by purely honest discussion. James has observed that the "earthly, sensual, demonic wisdom is selfish and full of jealousy, but the wisdom that is from above is pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy, impartial, not hypocritical". But yeah, you can see an evolution of thought through this thread that demonstrates a tendency to cut loose the wrong when the right comes to light.Seeking out what is right and knowing what is right are not the same. What you cling to may not be right even though such doubt may compel you to cling to it even more. Is it possible a well phrased rhetorical question will help loosen your grip? Or is that the thing you want most to guard against? — Fooloso4
G.I.Gurdlieff."Man has no individual i. But there are, instead, hundreds and thousands of separate small "i"s, very often entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other, mutually exclusive and incompatible. Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking, "i". And each time his i is different. just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality. Man's name is legion.”
I don't believe I was wrong to assume so. It was the obvious explanation for why you would object to the action of referencing rather than asking for an explanation. — Serving Zion
Referencing scripture as a response - how helpful is that ? Sounds somewhat preachy...
...So - are you saying you can't remember the point ?
But while I could remember the details of the conversation yesterday, today it has slipped my mind. I just trust that if it becomes necessary to explain, those details will come back to me, because it is certainly in there but there seems to be something blocking it :)
— Serving Zion
While it is not necessary to explain, it might help to put your question in context.
What were the differences between you in 'handling the scripture as intended' ? — Amity
I do understand the internal pressures that impede us from going where others desire to lead us. I have years of experience in these matters. Even when I provide links, there are some people who, being prejudiced against the value of scripture, will simply not click it. — Serving Zion
So it equips me with experience to understand how such behaviours, regrettable though they may be, in fact can and do occur. — Serving Zion
Speculative reasoning. Let me know if you need more information to help with that. — Serving Zion
You have a predisposition to oppose the use of scripture, because you think it is "preachy" and that appears to be a despicable practice in your opinion. — Serving Zion
preachy - adjective
INFORMAL
having or showing a tendency to give moral advice in a tedious or self-righteous way.
"his patriotic pictures had a preachy tone"
synonyms:moralistic, moralizing, sanctimonious, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, priggish, sententious, pietistic, didactic, dogmatic; — Oxford online dictionary
It is easy to find Isaiah 1:18 or any scriptural reference. Not so easy to see the relevance here.
— Amity
Alright. Well, as I said, make of it what you will. I had remembered that scripture because it shows God invites reasoning and that is contrary to the spirit that produces views such as what I was addressing on Sunday, and that interprets questions as having rhetorical value without first answering the question. I thought you might rather benefit by that perspective. — Serving Zion
Isaiah 1:18 New International Version (NIV)
18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
— NIV
...Seeking out what is right and knowing what is right are not the same. What you cling to may not be right even though such doubt may compel you to cling to it even more. Is it possible a well phrased rhetorical question will help loosen your grip? Or is that the thing you want most to guard against?
— Fooloso4
I would advise to not take such a calculated approach, rather in humble service, allow the truth to manifest by purely honest discussion. James has observed that the "earthly, sensual, demonic wisdom is selfish and full of jealousy, but the wisdom that is from above is pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy, impartial, not hypocritical". But yeah, you can see an evolution of thought through this thread that demonstrates a tendency to cut loose the wrong when the right comes to light. — Serving Zion
Did you read the background to that observation? — Serving Zion
It shows that a rhetorical question is only effective if the answer to the question supports the speaker's point. — Serving Zion
In order for a rhetorical question to be effective, any valid answer given to the question must be consistent with the single conclusion that the speaker is drawing by putting the question in the given context. — Serving Zion
I think that my answer to it has a potential to challenge the "single robust conclusion" that you were expecting to find, that is "it doesn't" (which is yet possible, if you can lead me to see it). — Serving Zion
Hmmm, it looks to me that you have answered the question. If a hearer doesn't agree that the speaker's conclusion is necessarily true for the question, then the speaker's point has become discredited. — Serving Zion
Therefore it fails to be a robust statement ... — Serving Zion
... and is a failure in communication so far as a speaker's objective is to effectively convey knowledge. — Serving Zion
I have already conceded that rhetorical questions are not slang ... — Serving Zion
... a rhetorical question is not a misuse of language at all — Serving Zion
I am looking for an argument though, that says I am wrong to say invalid rhetoric questions (whereby the conclusion is not necessarily true) are invalid language. — Serving Zion
No, and the purpose appears to be bringing conviction to them for their ignorance of those things. — Serving Zion
... it produces the intended statement — Serving Zion
I would advise to not take such a calculated approach, rather in humble service, allow the truth to manifest by purely honest discussion. — Serving Zion
No, humble service to me!Humble service to who are what? God? The truth? — Fooloso4
No you read me wrong. You asked if a carefully constructed rhetorical question might help, to which I advised you to not be so calculative but rather let the truth manifest it's own conviction.What I offer as honest discussion you dismiss as "calculated". — Fooloso4
OK, thanks for that explanation — Serving Zion
FWIW, the NIV doesn't have the keywords that I was relying on "let us reason together". So perhaps that is where the whole deviation is rooted, and I will take on board to use links in future (as I said). I can't see any value in responding further, it's a derailment and off-topic to the thread. You could PM me if you have a personal grievance, more than happy to work that out in an appropriate place. — Serving Zion
Isaiah 1:18 New International Version (NIV)
18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool. — NIV
At first, it didn't seem to have anything particularly new for me, so I wasn't really compelled to comment on it. But as you can see, I did refer to the Charlie Brown example a few times, and that evolved into an understanding that some rhetorical questions in fact are not valid (because the speaker's expected conclusion contains an element of fallacy). So it is good that I can report to you now, that you may be encouraged to know that you have brought forth one of the most valuable facts I have at the present time.What did you think of the content regarding 'the rhetorical question' ? Did it lead to an improved understanding? — Amity
I still don't understand the threat of rhetorical questions. I see you citing the NT above. The Bible uses metaphorical language, which also can lead to confusion. And Jesus even uses rhetorical questions:The risk of a poorly formed (ie: fake) rhetorical question, is that the hearer who does not arrive at the same conclusion as the speaker, is compelled (and entitled) to interject and detract from the speaker's statement (and, subsequent authority to speak).
— Serving Zion
Someone could have jumped in and interrupted, thinking Jesus wanted an answer to these questions.In Mark 8:17-18, Jesus asked his followers: "Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?"
As Jesus joined questions together without giving pause for an answer, his listeners were rendered thoughtfully speechless.
This technique can be used effectively in discussion groups to powerfully reinforce a point.
He's not expecting any of them to say 'I would'. I think that's a good idea.Which one of you, when his son asks for a fish, will give him a stone?”
If salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored?
Isaiah 44:19 where he says:
"Shall I bow down to a block of wood?"
In Romans 6:1, Paul asks:
"Shall we sin to our heart's content and see how far we can exploit the grace of God?"
In Genesis 39:9 the question Joseph asked Potiphar’s wife is rhetorical, intended to express the horror of sinning against God. Joseph says, “How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” This is not a question asking for information. Joseph is speaking to Potiphar’s wife, who is tempting him to commit adultery with her. He is saying, “I most certainly will not do such a great wickedness and sin against God!”
Mark 3:23 says, “How can Satan cast out Satan?” This is the rhetorical question which means “Satan certainly does not cast his own demons out!”
Matthew 7:3 reads, “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” This is using a rhetorical question to say, “You should judge your own greater faults before you judge your brother’s minor faults.”
Some rhetorical questions are used to indicate a command or exhortation. For example, Mark 14:6 says, “Why trouble ye her?” This is a way of saying, “Stop troubling her!” Romans 14:10 says, “Why dost thou set at nought thy brother?” This is a way of using a rhetorical question to say, “You should not set at nought your brother!”
Sometimes rhetorical questions are used to indicate the start of a new subject or to introduce some new aspect about the same subject. For example, Matthew 11;16 says, “But whereunto shall I liken this generation?” This is a way of saying, “I will tell you what this generation is like” (and then going on to say what it is like). Another example is Matthew 12:48 where Jesus says, “Who is my mother? And who are my brethren?” These rhetorical questions mean, “I will tell you who my mother is and who my brethren are.” (Then he tells them who they are). John 13:12 reads, “Know ye what I have done to you?” This is a rhetorical question meaning, “I will tell you the meaning of what I have done to you.” In Mark 13:2 Jesus says, “Seest thou these great buildings?” Jesus is using a rhetorical question to say, “I will tell you something about the great buildings you are seeing.” In Matthew 11:7 Jesus says, “What went ye out into the wilderness to see?” (This was spoken about John the Baptist.) This rhetorical question means, “I will tell you about this person you went into the wilderness to see.”
Rhetorical questions are often used to prohibit an action. We read in I Corinthians 6:16, “What? Know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body?” In this verse, the rhetorical question is used to condemn an action and prohibit it from taking place. Paul says in I Corinthians 3:5, “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed?” Paul is using a rhetorical question to belittle and prohibit the factious attitude of putting one servant of God above another. In Matthew 3:14 we read, “But John forbade him saying, “I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?” John is using a rhetorical question to show a polite disapproval but not an absolute refusal to do what the Lord wanted him to do. Mark 4:41 says, “And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?” Here the rhetorical question is possibly used to show surprise and astonishment, but it could also be a real question.
Luke 11:12 reads, “Or if he shall ask as egg, will he offer him a scorpion?”
Luke 16:11 says, “If therefore ye have not been faithful…who will commit to your trust the true riches?” This rhetorical question means, “If you have not been faithful, no one will commit the true riches to your trust!”
What I offer as honest discussion you dismiss as "calculated". — Fooloso4
You seem to have not thought any of this through since you keep changing position. — Fooloso4
I got these primarily from two sources....
https://blog.logos.com/2016/10/quickly-find-every-rhetorical-question-bible/
https://michaeljeshurun.wordpress.com/tag/rhetorical-questions-in-the-bible/
this second one is especially good since it categorises the different uses of rhetorical questions. IOW it catologues the benefits. And there are many benefits to this rhetorical device. So, one can then weigh the benefits against possible problems. It seems to me the writers of the Bible have implicitly come down on the side saying that the benefits outweigh the problems. — Coben
Because other cultures are different from biblical culture, they may use rhetorical questions in ways that are different from the ways used in New Testament. We will need to know what the function of a question is in a particular verse, and we will need to know how this meaning can be translated into the ethnic language. If a question in the Bible is consistently misunderstood in an ethnic language where the people use rhetorical questions only to ridicule or emphasize the negative aspects of an action, some adjustments may be necessary.
There are at least three possible ways to adjust rhetorical questions to make them understand in the way intended.
[ my bolds ]
1.Change the question into a statement.
2.Change negative questions to positive ones.
3. Supply an answer to the question.
In Romans 8:31 it says, “If God be for us, who can be against us?” We can supply the answer: “No one!”
In 2 Corinthians 6:15 it says, “And what concord hath Christ with Belial?” We can supply the answer: “None at all!”
In Mark 8:37 it says, “Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” Because this verse is often taken to mean that a man can give something in exchange for his soul, an answer to the question may be given, “He can’t give anything in exchange for his soul!”
Well, I was looking for a way to present rhetorical questions to Zion in ways he might be more open to, given his quoting from the NT.However, this sounds prescriptive and evangelically dogmatic. — Amity
I think that is why there is so much of the problems I find amongst book-idolising people, it is essentially an intellectual dishonesty that prevents them from wrestling with the speaker for fear that they would lose their salvation by choosing to wrestle Him - and of course, that is to believe in quite a different character than the one who says "come now, let us reason together". — Serving Zion
Well, I was looking for a way to present rhetorical questions to Zion in ways he might be more open to and knowledgeable about, given his quoting from the NT. — Coben
Perhaps 2 Esdras 4 may help answer your question.I have believed that every question deserves an answer. So how can I be right if rhetorical questions demand no answer? — Serving Zion
The second way that the question-asking approach works is, this tactic veritably helps you get to connect with folks on a more personal level. You will get to know them better and see what makes them “tick” – whether or not they had previously been a total stranger to you. And since they will force themselves to see why they believe the way they do, they will simultaneously get to know themselves better in the process! If you sprinkle in your own responses that you find in common with them (“you’ve come across hypocrites in the church, too? I know exactly how you feel! Here’s what happened to me…”), * *
you can actually start to build a relationship with them. And relationships can start to tear down those defensive walls people erect, making them more open to what you have to say about the Gospel.
What questions should you ask? They needn’t be anything overly complicated. Just keep the discussion going with a line of questions in a gentle, loving, and non-threatening manner. *
You could ask:
“What do you mean by that? Could you explain that to me a little better?”
“Why do you think that way?”
“How did you come to that conclusion?”
“Where did you get that information?”
“What’s the best case you could make for that?”
From here, you could get a bit more specific based on what your new friend brings up in the conversation, always putting them in the place where they’re forced to introspectively example themselves. — Scott Roberts
Rich words! .. I certainly did not intend to do that. I chose to respond only to what was necessary.
What did you think of the content regarding 'the rhetorical question' ?
— Amity
It has already been covered in prior material on this thread.
Did it lead to an improved understanding?
— Amity
Do you understand why you are asking this question? * — Serving Zion
I am sorry that it grated you, I don't know how many rude bible thumpers have assaulted you with scripture in the past,
but I know my own portion, how hurtful it can be. **
I hope this has explained my intention properly and that you might look back on what I have said as a friendly person to see that I have meant no harm. — Serving Zion
As for the rest of your post, I also wish to apologise double for having not thanked you for your contribution sooner. I can see that you really are a thoughtful, kind person, you did good work to gather the pieces that you brought to me, and you are motivated by a genuine love in doing so (Matthew 7:12). So it truly is regrettable that I failed to grasp that sooner, and that I didn't see the warning signs of this very thing in your words, and that we subsequently were severed and grappling for reconciliation.
I might have spoken differently to avoid such conflict if I had been a bit wiser, so I am grateful that you are who you are, and that despite finding that you are sometimes not appreciated fairly, still you have not held back from bringing your firstfruits. — Serving Zion
In evidence of this, I can show you
What I offer as honest discussion you dismiss as "calculated".
— Fooloso4
.. which is based upon my having advised that you not take such a calculated approach as you were intending to do, as an effort to try and change me. I said that you should just let truth manifest through your humble service [to me]. — Serving Zion
Your post seems like a rhetorical declarative sentence: you asked no question, but you're expecting an answer.
Sorry to disappoint you with that observation, but no answer. — Relativist
By nature they tend to believe what their book says and then try to rationalise it, instead of examining whether they understand it well, and then whether it seems true and insightful. They tend to be irrational in such prejudice, and equally ignorant in dismissing the books of other book people if they think their identity is not aligned. You can find people of that character in all religions and the same character in non-religious people too. I say it is idolatry because they do not follow the truth. It is prejudice, predisposed ignorance.Which group of people do have in mind when you talk of 'book-idolising' ? — Amity
I say it is intellectual dishonesty, because in order to believe what we read without wrestling it, when the belief is wrong, one needs to suppress the spirit of truth that internally is pleading for us to question the belief. For example, it happens a lot, when a Christian is new they might ask a question that no one in their church can answer. So they just don't understand. Then, somebody might suggest that it is better to believe it than to doubt the Word of God. So they would concede because they don't want the church to think that they don't believe the Word of God. It's a type of emotional blackmail, but there's other examples too. When someone believes that homosexuality is sin because the bible says so, but they don't understand why, that's what they are doing. Prejudiced beliefs. Parrots. It is intellectually dishonest because in their greed to believe, they need to suppress that question within that says "why?". Then, in order to justify their belief when that question comes from outside them, they need to generate an answer.What do you mean by 'intellectual dishonesty'. Please give an example. — Amity
Book people believe that the book is the authoritative declaration of God, and that salvation depends upon obedience to what God says. So it naturally seems like betrayal and forfeiture of that salvation if they begin arguing with what they suppose God has said in the book.Why would you believe that there is a fear of loss of salvation ? — Amity
It goes with the territory, that the type of book idolizing person I described necessarily believes that the book is the authoritative teaching of God.Why would you think that they might believe in any kind of God character, even if He is interpreted as being rational and capable of being reasoned with ? — Amity
Well, it is simply my vocabulary :) :up:It's what it all boils down to. — Amity
Tone changed, that's for sure! (Much as yours did to me after my response to your first post).The tone changed when he viewed me as a potential 'new friend' — Amity
So I reckon that rhetorical questions are an invalid language construct, because it's effectiveness relies upon the breaking of a fundamental code of language: that questions are a request for a response. — Serving Zion
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.