Originally posted by Proper KnobIf you have anything to say on the topic please feel free, if you dont then perhaps this is not the thread for you?
What is the point in engaging with you? As soon as someone starts asking you questions about statements you have made and your views on the topic at hand, if you can't answer them, out trots your rather boring and banal 'it's not about me' or 'personal remarks will be ignored' lines.
THE TOPIC
A Christians willingness to substitute emotionalism for study of scripture. My contention being that i dont see how its possible to get to know God without study.
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou presented some questionable evidence of Jesus' "study of scripture" ~ a sub-topic which you yourself raised ~ and the process by which you arrived at declaring it a "fact" and declaring it to be a proven "truth claim" raised a legitimate question about whether your approach was an example of "anti-intellectualism" ~ which is the topic, after all.
THE TOPIC
what its actually about is a Christians willingness to substitute emotionalism for study of scripture. My contention being that i dont see how its possible to get to know God without study. This is what its actually about.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou don't get to know God. He doesn't exist. 🙂
If you have anything to say on the topic please feel free, if you dont then perhaps this is not the thread for you?
[b]THE TOPIC
A Christians willingness to substitute emotionalism for study of scripture. My contention being that i dont see how its possible to get to know God without study.[/b]
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFTHE TOPIC
You presented some questionable evidence of Jesus' "study of scripture" ~ a sub-topic which you yourself raised ~ and the process by which you arrived at declaring it a "fact" and declaring it to be a proven "truth claim" raised a legitimate question about whether your approach was an example of "anti-intellectualism" ~ which is the topic, after all.
A Christians willingness to substitute emotionalism for study of scripture. My contention being that i dont see how its possible to get to know God without study.
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhen it comes right down to it, when trying to deal in "truth claims", might it not be said that saying "its written in the Bible" therefore it is "a statement of fact" is an example of Christian emotionalism?
its written in the Bible
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by Proper Knobwhether he exists or does not exist is not the issue, the issue is a Christians willingness to substitute others methods for attempting to get to know God and hos is this possible, which remains unanswered.
You don't get to know God. He doesn't exist. 🙂
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"THE TOPIC" is "anti-intellectualism" and it was you who raised the topic of Jesus' "study of scripture" by citing his demonstration of his purported prowess when he was alone in the desert.
THE TOPIC
A Christians willingness to substitute emotionalism for study of scripture. My contention being that i dont see how its possible to get to know God without study.
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFfind you think its an example of emotionalism. do you often refer to appeals to literature as an example of emotionalism?
When it comes right down to it, when trying to deal in "truth claims", might it not be said that saying "its written in the Bible" therefore it is "a statement of fact" is an example of Christian emotionalism?
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOften. Yes. I think you have demonstrated both emotionalism and anti-intellectualism on this thread. But it's OK because you demonstrating them is on-topic.
find you think its an example of emotionalism. do you often refer to appeals to literature as an example of emotionalism?
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFi described at some length what the thread is about and to any reasonable person it concerns Christians and their willingness to substitute elements like emotionalism instead of study. Its in the Op if you care to read it. Its not about intellectualism or anti intellectualism in general and i resent the fact that you have attempted to redefine it.
"THE TOPIC" is "anti-intellectualism" and it was you who raised the topic of Jesus' "study of scripture" by citing his demonstration of his purported prowess when he was alone in the desert.
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou yourself, a few pages ago said "truth claims" need "proof" and then you brushed this aside and insisted it was "a statement of fact" because "it is written in the Bible". Both the substance of your claim and your 'intellectual behaviour' a few pages ago ~ maybe page 7 onwards ~ seemed deeply emotional and little else. I would call it a form of "anti-intellectualism". And yes, your demeanour seems emotional and your argumentation seems emotional.
In what way is saying its written in the Bible emotional?
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFseems deeply emotional? and yet i have not said anything about the way I feel, so we shall ask you once again, in what way is making an appeal on the basis of scripture emotional?
You yourself, a few pages ago said "truth claims" need "proof" and then you brushed this aside and insisted it was "a statement of fact" because "it is written in the Bible". Both the substance of your claim and your 'intellectual behaviour' a few pages ago ~ maybe page 7 onwards ~ seemed deeply emotional and little else. I would call it a form of "anti-intellectualism". And yes, your demeanour seems emotional and your argumentation seems emotional.
Originally posted by FMFthis is nothing more than belief in your own propaganda, you have not a shred of evidence that i have been emotional nor that my arguments have their basis in emotionalism, your statement is unfounded and has no basis in reality other than the values you seem to imbue it with.
You yourself, a few pages ago said "truth claims" need "proof" and then you brushed this aside and insisted it was "a statement of fact" because "it is written in the Bible". Both the substance of your claim and your 'intellectual behaviour' a few pages ago ~ maybe page 7 onwards ~ seemed deeply emotional and little else. I would call it a form of "anti-intellectualism". And yes, your demeanour seems emotional and your argumentation seems emotional.