Really incapable of a decent conversation??

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
While there appear to be a number of forces involved, here are a couple key elements:

1) Paul claimed to be divinely inspired: Jesus had come to him in a "vision".

2) Paul replaced living a Christ-like life with having faith in Christ. It is MUCH easier to profess belief than it is to actually walk the walk. This seems to be an extremely strong incentive.

I see, but this point seems ...funny.

A true philosopher would never dare to claim such a nonsence to his audience; how could the early Christians ever be satisfied with this attitude?

Originally posted by black beetle
I see, but this point seems ...funny.

A true philosopher would never dare to claim such a nonsence to his audience; how could the early Christians ever be satisfied with this attitude?

Can you elaborate on what you're asking?
Which "point seems funny"?
Which "nonsense"?
Which "attitude"?

What does philosophy have to do with Paul?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Can you elaborate on what you're asking?
Which "point seems funny"?
Which "nonsense"?
Which "attitude"?

What does philosophy have to do with Paul?

When somebody claims that he had "a vision of god" and that he can talk in behalf of that god, I consider it funny.

When that guy starts preaching, I consider it nonsense.

When the people have the attitude to follow blindly a theological thesis from a person that presents it as "the word of god" because of a vision of his, I consider it dull.

Paul has nothing to do with the philosophy but his audience is ready to accept any mix of pseudophilosophical "truth", and this I consider it dangerous.

Originally posted by black beetle
their beliefs are falling in bits under the hammer of the Science and the Common Sens (sense) .

Such a self-satisfied, arrogant post. Are you incapable of having a decent conversation?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Such a self-satisfied, arrogant post. Are you incapable of having a decent conversation?

I agree with black beetle.

They are constantly trying to bring in religion in the Science Forum - as if they have the right to preach everywhere. They don't. They have their Spiritual Forum and there is the proper place to preach, even if they preach fto themselves.

Science and religion can never be mixed.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I agree with black beetle.

They are constantly trying to bring in religion in the Science Forum - as if they have the right to preach everywhere. They don't. They have their Spiritual Forum and there is the proper place to preach, even if they preach fto themselves.

Science and religion can never be mixed.

You talk like a paranoiac. As for the hypocrisy -- thanks for the lulz!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You talk like a paranoiac. As for the hypocrisy -- thanks for the lulz!

Is this a personal attack? What are you afraid of?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Is this a personal attack? What are you afraid of?

I'm just laughing at you. You use the language of contamination to describe the 'preachers' bent on destroying the purity of the science forum ('they' are germs ... cockroaches ... viruses ... ), yet you frequently post in the 'other' forum in a way that, were the shoe on the other foot, you would deplore. Ridiculous, no?

What gives you the impression I'm afraid of something?

And, incidentally, what's worse -- a personal attack, face to face, or impersonally smearing an entire category of people by insinuating that they are some sort of plague?

What are you afraid of -- admitting that you're utterly prejudiced? You're certainly not frightened of making a fool out of yourself -- bravo!

(I thank black beetle for providing a suitable context for this post.)

Originally posted by black beetle

They really seem to me incapable to enjoy a debate and to promote a decent and fruitful conversation...

What would you like to debate with 'them'?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What would you like to debate with 'them'?

I would like to discuss the possibility that anybody can be really decent regardless his religion. I would like to know how they think and why. I would like to know if they are really aware that religionism is a dangerous situation. They, not "they".
Why would you like to debate with 'me', my honey-tongued brother?

Originally posted by black beetle
I would like to discuss the possibility that anybody can be really decent regardless his religion. I would like to know how they think and why. I would like to know if they are really aware that religionism is a dangerous situation. They, not "they".
Why would you like to debate with 'me', my honey-tongued brother?

Why? Because your words appear in this forum ...

What? Life, the universe & everything -- like you ...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Why? Because your words appear in this forum ...

What? Life, the universe & everything -- like you ...

And why you estimate that I am incapable of a decent conversation?

Originally posted by black beetle
And why you estimate that I am incapable of a decent conversation?

Discussing why 'they' are not capable of decent conversation doesn't strike me as a particularly fruitful topic for conversation.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Discussing why 'they' are not capable of decent conversation doesn't strike me as a particularly fruitful topic for conversation.

So you consider "fruitful" splely whatever strikes you as "particularly fruitful"?

Originally posted by black beetle
So you consider "fruitful" splely whatever strikes you as "particularly fruitful"?

No, it would be something that breaks new ground, offers a fresh perspective, rather than circling interminably around the same point. Quite a challenge.