15 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneyou've completely misunderstood me in a way so monstrously tragic, i thought it not possible; i'm suggesting that it is impossible to be anything other than selfish in a "moral" sense. this doesn't imply a value judgement, i'm not going to impose values as you have done. you are still thinking about the 5 year old's definition of a selfish man, rather than looking at the more conceptual opposition of selfless/selfish-ness.
I'm not sure where you've gone with this last post.
JE and I were discussing overcoming selfishness when you chimed in with: "But may i ask, why is it a bad thing to be 'selfish' anyway if it is a) normal and b) makes no difference to the effect on others?"
Selfish people don't often act kindly to others. Even when they do, they often do so in ord ...[text shortened]... entered to bother? Do you not care about the [b]effect on readers of your posts? 🙂[/b]
how the subject of selfishness came up in this discussion was your condemnation of hedonism:
"Hedonism will be found to be lacking except amongst the most shallow, self-centered and immature.
which i entirely disagree with.
i'm sorry that i don't use proper capitalisation, but it is sad that you've taken to petty irrelevant nit-picking points in your defence instead of grappling with the subject at hand. what effect will it have on other readers? i don't see the issue to be honest.
you suggest that i may be too self centred - which betrays your misunderstanding - i am saying that people *act* selflessly - people *act* and believe that they are not self centred, however the underlying mechanism can not be selfless as we can not escape subjectivity. however whether or not the act is selfless or selfish, the action is the same and thus will have the same effect.
i can not see how you don't understand this! honestly! if i throw a brick at a window because i think that i'll be granted a wish for it, or because i think it will make a nice noise, regardless of my reasoning, the window will experience the same effect ... surely????
15 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
no i can not imagine non existence, but i can think about whether i can imagine non existence or not, and consider its ramifications for this argument.
The point that you are missing is fairly basic. Were God to create only those who choose His system, wouldn't there be some naysayer in the crowd who dismisses the whole experiment on account of pointlessness?
so what is this "his system" you talk about - as you've stated, the value of free will is paramount, and so his system is one based upon free will - one in which the naysayer will cause a problem and hence evil in the world (even in his system you described, there is someone who speaks out against) - the question in this post is why would god condemn people to a creation of eternal hell, in knowingness.
there are some bigger questions however which are raised - why would god create at all? (especially if he knew the consequences for many people) - remember in the beginning, nothing was created, the future had not happened and so a lack of creation neither a good nor bad thing (by human standards) which raises a second point ... why is god so human? why did he get bored / experience time during creation / do things so wrong?
and on that point ... why on earth did he create such awful creatures as humans ... biologically we are difficult to understand, but very much an imperfect creation. why is this?
these are not necessarily questions to answer here, but have been raised in my mind during this post.
What I asked was how do you differentiate between the categories - i didn't ask for a repetition of the question.
Then I probably shouldn't repeat my response that you clearly missed. Hermeneutics and isagogics. More specifically, I am keen on the ICE system of interpretation. You?
if i asked a scientist how he measured the distance to the sun and he replied "science" - i would not consider it a question answered. you did not previously mention ICE, only the terms hermeneutics and isagogics, which do not answer the question. i do not know of the ICE system myself, is that ICE as in thomas ice? even so, my point is that interpretation of the bible can only be subjective - and i want to know the implications of this on the "truth" claims of christianity
you explain that to me - i think you're probably are a christian, if not then you're playing a terrible devil's advocate.
Was there a question in there somewhere?
are you a christian? if so then broadly speaking what type, and if not, what do you believe and why are you defending christianity so.
i don't have enough faith in my mind to take myself seriously. how can i? it's just a mishmash of chemicals.
Do you know that, or is it just the chemicals talking?
my emergent consciousness is talking. that's me, pleased to meet you.
15 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAhhh...I get it ...I challenged your position once again therefore I must be a liar and distorter. It's still a very convenient mechanism for you isn't it. I congratulate you on how efficiently you use it.
It's remarkable how you post so many distortions, half-truths and outright lies without reservation. You say you worship the God of Truth. Why don't your posts reflect that?
You should really follow the words of Jesus. It can only make you a better person. Today's as good a day as any to begin.
Agree with Think of One = Okay person , Challenge Thinkof One = liar , distorter
You don't have to respond and you can dismiss the challenge as a lie. You would make a great fundie , are you involved in politics by any chance?
(BTW- Feel free to correct any of my "lies" any time you want by stating the truth - have you overcome sin then?)
15 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt's not like this is the first time I've tried to explain it to you, but I'll once again break this down as simply as possible.
Ahhh...I get it ...I challenged your position once again therefore I must be a liar and distorter. It's still a very convenient mechanism for you isn't it. I congratulate you on how efficiently you use it.
Agree with Think of One = Okay person , Challenge Thinkof One = liar , distorter
You don't have to respond and you can dismiss the challeng ...[text shortened]... rect any of my "lies" any time you want by stating the truth - have you overcome sin then?)
Your "challenge" was made as a statement of fact:
"How do you reconcile the fact that you have not overcome sin yourself and do not believe Jesus was who he said he was NOR in the Holy Spirit but still think you can preach to Christians anyway?"
However the reality is that you don't have FACTs - only speculation. When you knowingly represent speculation as fact, it is a lie. This makes you a LIAR. The fact that I keep correcting you on this, but you insist on doing so anyway makes it all the more egregious. Even this latest post contains a distortion. Trying to "spin" it like I call you a liar because I am being "challenged" is a distortion. Are you incapable of writing an honest post?
I realize that you'll likely continue. By insisting on doing so as you have, you have shown that you are likely either too dense to understand or you simply lack the moral character to care.
15 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by cpbrownCapitalization makes it easier for the reader to parse what is written. It's unfortunate that you are unable to "see the issue". Any ideas on why this is?
you've completely misunderstood me in a way so monstrously tragic, i thought it not possible; i'm suggesting that it is impossible to be anything other than selfish in a "moral" sense. this doesn't imply a value judgement, i'm not going to impose values as you have done. you are still thinking about the 5 year old's definition of a selfish man, rather than l ardless of my reasoning, the window will experience the same effect ... surely????
You might want to ask yourself this: "If I can't be bothered to use proper capitalization, why should anyone be bothered to parse what I've written?"
15 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf it makes it easier for you to read, then I'll reply to you with capitalisation. Maybe I'm just a lot better at parsing information than you - you probably need to read slightly slower when there's no capitals, I'm not affected.
Capitalization makes it easier for the reader to parse what is written. It's unfortunate that you are unable to "see the issue". Any ideas on why this is?
You might want to ask yourself this: "If I can't be bothered to use proper capitalization, why should anyone be bothered to parse what I've written?"
However, I think that your avoidance of the actual subject matter (which remains the same, capitalised or not) is a clear indication of your a) lack of understanding and b) lack of any good answer.
15 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBut what is a fact? Is it something which is true? Because for many people, including many atheists - there is no such thing as truth. Thus, technically nothing is a fact. However we must speak in approximations in order to get on in life, and so his fact remains defensible. Are you suggesting that you have "overcome sin"? Or is it a "fact" that you have not done so?
However the reality is that you don't have FACTs - only speculation. When you knowingly represent speculation as fact, it is a lie. This makes you a LIAR. The fact that I keep correcting you on this...
15 Mar 08
Originally posted by cpbrownYour observations are off-base (and juvenile for that matter). You might want to reread both his post and mine to be able to better understand what was written. Maybe you're trying too hard to find a way to slam what I've written instead of trying to comprehend it.
But what is a fact? Is it something which is true? Because for many people, including many atheists - there is no such thing as truth. Thus, technically nothing is a fact. However we must speak in approximations in order to get on in life, and so his fact remains defensible. Are you suggesting that you have "overcome sin"? Or is it a "fact" that you have not done so?
15 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHave you ever studied philosophy at all? It doesn't sound like you have any grasp on reason whatsoever, I was responding to what you said (with a direct quotation) - and pointed out (using the most basic of philosophical thought) a flaw in it which I hoped would clear some things up for you.
Your observations are off-base (and juvenile for that matter). You might want to reread both his post and mine to be able to better understand what was written. Maybe you're trying too hard to find a way to slam what I've written instead of trying to comprehend it.
Are you once again, as a previous poster has noticed, telling me that I'm wrong simply because I disagree with you?
Or is it the fact that I'm suggesting that you're not sinless?
15 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by cpbrownWell, I was hoping you'd be able to figure this out on your own, but I'll explain it to you.
Have you ever studied philosophy at all? It doesn't sound like you have any grasp on reason whatsoever, I was responding to what you said (with a direct quotation) - and pointed out (using the most basic of philosophical thought) a flaw in it which I hoped would clear some things up for you.
Are you once again, as a previous poster has noticed, telling me disagree with you?
Or is it the fact that I'm suggesting that you're not sinless?
KM asserted something as a "fact":
"How do you reconcile the fact that you have not overcome sin yourself and do not believe Jesus was who he said he was NOR in the Holy Spirit but still think you can preach to Christians anyway?"
Though he calls it "fact", he knows that it's speculative. And not just in a "philosophical" "What is a fact?" sort of way. It is his representation of speculation as fact that I've taken issue. In the quote you took from me, I used and capitalized the word "fact" to emphasize the point.
Also, you really need to understand that what seems to be a "clever" argument at your age, can be seen as sophomoric to those with more life experience.
15 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThere was no response because we've been over the same ground multiple times and yet continue to reach the same dead end. I believe that the Bible is meant to be interpreted in light of the time in which it was written, as well as in light of the whole of Scripture.
Why no respones? Did you miss my reply to your post?
First of all, are you saying that you believe that 1 John 1:9 supercedes the words of Jesus?
Second of all, look at that verses that precede it. The only way that 1:9 makes sense in that context is that it is speaking of sins committed prior to coming to true repentance and overcoming sin. If you ...[text shortened]... l he reap."
These statements appear to be at odds. How do you reconcile the two?
[/b]
Further, I believe that one must discern not only the intended audience of the writer, but also the intended application. Unlike you, I do not superficially and literally apply each and every word. Such a policy always ends in some form of psychosis.
15 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI could speculate that you are human ... it's likely enough that by stating the FACT that you are human is fact enough the be stated thus without being called a liar.
Well, I was hoping you'd be able to figure this out on your own, but I'll explain it to you.
KM asserted something as a "fact":
"How do you reconcile the [b]fact that you have not overcome sin yourself and do not believe Jesus was who he said he was NOR in the Holy Spirit but still think you can preach to Christians anyway?"
Though he calls it ...[text shortened]... ent at your age, can be seen as sophomoric to those with more life experience.[/b]
I was concentrating on the "overcoming sin" part of the argument, his assertions about your beliefs I have no knowledge of and so can not comment. However you called him a liar which I don't believe is true - and seems to be another example of your inability to coherently deal with the issues within this thread, and instead resolve to using petty insults.
I don't know how old you are, and you don't know how old I am. However, what I am aware of, with my degree of experience in this field, is that you seem incapable of comprehending simple philosophy or psychology.
I do not believe that time increases wisdom, nor every experience - relevant experience is what counts, as well as intellect. May I ask, since you brought up the issue - in what way are you qualified to speak about philosophy? If you're not, can you give some example of something you've done which required good intellect? I don't think you've made a very good first impression in these posts.
15 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHwow! a straight answer!! 😀 at long last :p now any offerings as to the implications of the basis for your knowledge about jesus being subjective and unreliable*
There was no response because we've been over the same ground multiple times and yet continue to reach the same dead end. I believe that the Bible is meant to be interpreted in light of the time in which it was written, as well as in light of the whole of Scripture.
Further, I believe that one must discern not only the intended audience of the writer ...[text shortened]... terally apply each and every word. Such a policy always ends in some form of psychosis.
*i assume you know about the fact that the events in the bible are probably quite far from the truth, due to practices in the early church
15 Mar 08
Originally posted by cpbrownso what is this "his system" you talk about
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
no i can not imagine non existence, but i can think about whether i can imagine non existence or not, and consider its ramifications for this argument.
The point that you are missing is fairly basic. Were God to create only those who choose His system, wouldn't there be some naysayer in the crowd who dismisses the who ...[text shortened]... king?
my emergent consciousness is talking. that's me, pleased to meet you.[/b]
In the Garden, the man and the woman had two systems to choose between: the Tree of Lives or the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. For an undetermined amount of time, they persisted in their choice of the former and eschewed the latter. Eventually, as we know and experience, the choice was made for the latter. The fruit of these trees represent the opposing systems available for man. Either he can choose the path of 'good and evil,' or he can choose the path of life.
one in which the naysayer will cause a problem and hence evil in the world (even in his system you described, there is someone who speaks out against)
Not necessarily. In the Garden, there was no sin possible except eating of the forbidden tree. Lust, envy, pride, doubt, or any other sin were not considered as such. Therefore, a simple logical question does not necessarily constitute evil, per se.
the question in this post is [b]why would god condemn people to a creation of eternal hell, in knowingness. [/b]
Trite as it may sound, only those who reject God end up there. Is that Him condemning them, or them condemning themselves?
there are some bigger questions however which are raised - why would god create at all? (especially if he knew the consequences for many people) - remember in the beginning, nothing was created, the future had not happened and so a lack of creation neither a good nor bad thing
There never was a time that God needed anything. In eternity past, He was content in Himself, within the company of the Trinity. The Father perfectly loved the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son perfectly loved the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit perfectly loved both the Father and the Son. And, they all perfectly loved themselves. His creation is an expression of Who He is, not as a result of need.
why on earth did he create such awful creatures as humans ... biologically we are difficult to understand, but very much an imperfect creation.
"But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us."
even so, my point is that interpretation of the bible can only be subjective
Indeed, trapped as we are. Yet we continue to struggle for the truth, don't we? We continue to fight the idols of our own minds in order to touch the rightness, to agree with the beauty. All of our knowledge is--- at best--- subjective, owing to many obstacles. It is comforting to know that one thing hasn't changed, despite the ravages of man's predilections: the word of Truth, as expressed in the Bible.
are you a christian? if so then broadly speaking what type
Yes. As far as what type, are you looking for my doctrinal statement of belief? Otherwise, my affiliations run most along dispensationalism.
my emergent consciousness is talking. that's me, pleased to meet you.
Emergent consciousness. What does that mean, exactly?
15 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI also believe that the Bible needs to be "interpreted in light of the time in which it was written." Where we seem to differ, is that I also believe that it needs to be interpreted in light of the words of Jesus rather than "in light of the whole of Scripture" like you do.
There was no response because we've been over the same ground multiple times and yet continue to reach the same dead end. I believe that the Bible is meant to be interpreted in light of the time in which it was written, as well as in light of the whole of Scripture.
Further, I believe that one must discern not only the intended audience of the writer ...[text shortened]... terally apply each and every word. Such a policy always ends in some form of psychosis.
I certainly do not "superficially and literally apply each and every word." Why do you find it necessary to comfort yourself with the belief that I do? For that matter, why do you find it necessary to discount the words of Jesus?
Perhaps you've chosen to ignore the questions that I raised in my post simply because you're afraid that the "Christianity" that you've constructed will come down like a house of cards.