Originally posted by NemesioPlease recall that it was [b]YOU who set up the criteria, not me.[/b]
Yes, and that criterion outlined the various aspects of life which have impact on societies. The aspects make up the fabric of societies under the influence of Western civilization. The criterion were established within this argument as a way to determine specific areas of impact which were wrought by Abraham, over and against any other historical figure.
Abraham's accomplishments were just simply that: he was first.
That being said, what Abraham began has had more influence on the planet (outside of Jesus Christ) than any other person. His influence was so great, that many visionary and extraordinary people continue to follow his lead. In fact, as you have pointed out, some of the most visionary and extraordinary people the world has ever known followed his lead and refused to depart from it.
What was his accomplishment? Receiving the promise of God and becoming the head of a new racial and spiritual species.
What was his lead? Faith in the living God.
Abraham's impact was negligable compared with Moses's.
To your eye, perhaps, but the Bible speaks of 'the God of Abraham' more often than it does of the 'God of Moses.'
Western civilization was my proof that Abraham has had more impact on the world (notable exception) than any other figure in history. There are many who have had profound impact in the shaping of Western civilization, with their contributions and accomplishments, but their accomplisments are merely manifestations of what Abraham seeded in the first place.
While many outstanding figures have continued to champion the cause began in him, his act of faith and example of obedience made their efforts possible.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou've resorted to repeating yourself. I've already addressed these issues multiple times.
[b]Please recall that it was [b]YOU who set up the criteria, not me.[/b]
Yes, and that criterion outlined the various aspects of life which have impact on societies. The aspects make up the fabric of societies under the influence of Western civilization. The criterion were established within this argument as a way to determine specific areas of impa ...[text shortened]... ause began in him, his act of faith and example of obedience made their efforts possible.[/b]
Until you define what it takes to be a great person, this is a meaningless exercise.
You keep wanting to say that Abraham was second-greatest because he was 'the first' and
without him there would not have been any other Jews. You fail to see the logical flaw in
this application and I tire of trying to drag this horse to the trough.
Believe what you want, FreakyKBH. Just know it is logically infelicitous.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou've resorted to repeating yourself.
Not really. Not really, at all. Not even a little bit. Huh-uh. No, sir.
Repitition has necessarily occured due to your insistence on not listening to the original argument. Because all of Western civilization can be traced back to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is directly delineated from Abraham, and because Abraham is the beginning of the path, after Jesus Christ, Abraham is the second most important person, relative to Western civilization.
Were someone to branch away from Abraham's path, and in so doing change Western civilization in such a fundamental way as to forge a completely different era, then you would have someone momentously noteworthy.
Just know it is logically infelicitous.
Logically inappropriate. Sure, er, I mean, unequivocally.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFreaky: "Repitition has necessarily occured due to your insistence on not listening to the original argument."
[b]You've resorted to repeating yourself.
Not really. Not really, at all. Not even a little bit. Huh-uh. No, sir.
Repitition has necessarily occured due to your insistence on not listening to the original argument. Because all of Western civilization can be traced back to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is directly delineated from Abraham, and be ...[text shortened]... it is logically infelicitous.[/b]
Logically inappropriate. Sure, er, I mean, unequivocally.[/b]
Hear hear .....
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Repitition has necessarily occured due to your insistence on not listening to the original argument. Because all of Western civilization can be traced back to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is directly delineated from Abraham, and because Abraham is the beginning of the path, after Jesus Christ, Abraham is the second most important person, relative to Western civilization.
Were someone to branch away from Abraham's path, and in so doing change Western civilization in such a fundamental way as to forge a completely different era, then you would have someone momentously noteworthy.
Let's see if a little graph doesn't clear things up to show why your 'argument' doesn't
make any sense.
You're saying (without definitions now, because that blew up in your face):
no Abraham = no Western Civilization
But, you'll notice that the amendations to your 'argument' make it no less valid:
no Abraham's dad = no Abraham = no Western Civilization.
or
Abraham but no Abraham's wife = no Western Civilization.
Do you see how meaningless your argument is? Without an infinitude of events between
Abraham and now, or even Abraham and Jesus, your formulation is totally invalid. There
are, by necessity, a bunch of clearly defined events which were required to get from Abraham
to Jesus or to now, almost all of which had nothing more to do with Abraham than his wife or
his forebears.
This is why I asked you to define things, because without such definitions your claim holds
no water.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeI have to give FreakyKBH credit, Ivanhoe. His arguments may be specious, but at least
Freaky: "Repitition has necessarily occured due to your insistence on not listening to the original argument."
Hear hear .....
he's making them rather than the spam you produce on this site.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioMy poor frontal lobe is beginning to feel the strain.
It appears you are trying to make more of the argument than is really there. You may as well be saying:
If Abram hadn't taken a nap twenty-six days after his third birthday, he would have been walking by the market, the same market where, on that day, a cart full of pottery had fallen. Given that the height of the cart was just above Abram's height at that time in his life, he would have been buried beneath the same, with the life crushed out of him. Ergo, all of Western civilization can be attributed to a nap.
The point you continually return to is that of achievement(s). What was achieved by fill-in-the-blank which had impact on Western civilization? And this is the point I am unable to get across to you: there was no achievement, in the traditional sense of the word.
Abraham believed God, accepted God's promise, lived a life of faith.
Western civilization, although replete with enormous amounts of achievements by a multitude of folks, is based on the faith of one man. That faith, in turn, is answered by millions more.
The consequential work of those faithful built what has become Western civilization.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
My poor frontal lobe is beginning to feel the strain.
I'll bet! That's called thinking. Rather than the religious rhetoric like
'Abraham changed the world by walking across a river' you have to actually
contemplate why. The good news is, the more you use the brain, the less
it will hurt.
If Abram hadn't taken a nap twenty-six days after his third birthday, he would have been walking by the market, the same market where, on that day, a cart full of pottery had fallen. Given that the height of the cart was just above Abram's height at that time in his life, he would have been buried beneath the same, with the life crushed out of him. Ergo, all of Western civilization can be attributed to a nap.
This is what's called a 'strawman.' First of all, you're getting confused again. I'm not making
an argument. I am analysizing the formal structure of yours. The nonsense above has nothing
to do with my analysis of your argument.
The point you continually return to is that of achievement(s). What was achieved by fill-in-the-blank which had impact on Western civilization? And this is the point I am unable to get across to you: there was no achievement, in the traditional sense of the word.
That's right! We agree. There was no achievement of note. Glad we agree.
Abraham believed God, accepted God's promise, lived a life of faith.
Western civilization, although replete with enormous amounts of achievements by a multitude of folks, is based on the faith of one man. That faith, in turn, is answered by millions more.
The consequential work of those faithful built what has become Western civilization.
Whoops. You just made the nonsense argument again. Let's say God spoke to Abraham
and he wanted to cross the river as a result. And let's say he said to Sarai, 'Cmon honey,
this voice called 'God' told me to move from where we are and do His bidding,' and she
said, 'Say what?' and refused to go. The result is: No seed of Abraham. So, with little
effort, we go from your 'faith of one man' to the 'faith of one man and one woman.' Now,
having crossed the river, they have kids, and Abraham says to Isaac, 'You know, God
wanted me to sacrifice you, but He was just testing me. Follow Him,' and Isaac said,
'Your God is a jerk!' and refused. Again: failure. So now, we have 'faith of one man,
one woman, and one progeny.' Guess what. It continues.
Do you understand FreakyKBH? Is the problem with your argument finally sinking in.
Yes, Abraham had to have faith. We agree. But so did a bunch of other people who,
without which, Abraham's faith would have amounted to nothing. We agree that Abraham
was the first, and that makes him special. That's why he's 'Father Abraham' and a
Patriarch. But that doesn't entail that he, himself, had the greatest influence on the
planet. He had an impact, but that impact was rather incidental, since it relied on
countless others. Compared with, say Moses, who made proclaimations which became
the basis for tradition, action, culture, and behavior, Abraham doesn't hold a candle.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: " I'm not making an argument. I am analysizing the formal structure of yours."
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]My poor frontal lobe is beginning to feel the strain.
I'll bet! That's called thinking. ... and behavior, Abraham doesn't hold a candle.
Nemesio[/b]
Ha ha ha ........ 😀
A career from quizzmaster to detective and teacher ..... 😛 ..... you're really going strong, Nemesio. 😀
Nemesio: "The good news is, the more you use the brain, the less it will hurt."
I love people with humour ..... ha ha ha ... 😀
EDIT: Reading your posts I can't believe your arrogance ..... really ... unbelievable .... 😲 ..... that condescending belittling tone ....... puke puke .....
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt took you 7 edits to produce this?
[b]Nemesio: " I'm not making an argument. I am analysizing the formal structure of yours."
Ha ha ha ....... 😀
A career from quizzmaster to detective and teacher ..... 😛 ..... you're really going strong, Nemesio. 😀
Nemesio: "The good news is, the more you use the brain, the less it will hurt."
I love people with humour ..... ...[text shortened]... . unbelievable .... 😲 ..... that condescending belittling tone ....... puke puke .....[/b]