1. Standard memberOmnislash
    Digital Blasphemy
    Omnipresent
    Joined
    16 Feb '03
    Moves
    21533
    17 Jul '05 04:22
    Despite (or perhaps in spite of) the innumerable academic debates of theology that have raged across time, the fact of the matter is that at only one time will we see clearly, and we will only agree with two populaces. The smalles populace that will share our views at any given time are the other living human beings who share our beliefs. The greates populace that will share our understanding shall be the deceased, for only when we die can we truly KNOW the truth of the universe and then our perspective shall be true and accurate beyond doubt.

    Since in this life we will never see eye to eye, it is foolish to judge another man by his beliefs. To do so by such grounds is baseless by both followers of benevolent beliefs and unbelievers who put their stock in logic alone. No matter how you look at it, to judge another man by his beliefs serves no function other than to further your personal agenda (if you make such declarations public) and to stroke your own ego (affirming your personal stance at the expense of anothers).

    What does make sense is to judge a man by that which he affects. By a mans actions alone can he be judged. In the context of spiritual debate, the greatest measurement (I feel) is respect. A man who can respect the converse belief to his own deserves like in turn indeed. ANy man who cares to hear what my views are and can do so without disrespecting me and my views surely is deserving of me hearing him in like respectful manner.

    I don't think I shall ever understand the gross amounts of slander that occur with theological debate. A person fo true academia need nto resort to insulting tactics (no matter how sugar coated). Truly, when you do so do do nothing but create a gap with your intolerance. Furthermore, I know that personally I tend to give little (or no) serious consideration to what a person says when they do so with specific and purposeful disrespect for the converse position.

    Thusly, in summary "Inability to convey your position respectfully is an inabilty to convey your position seriously."

    Such is my two cents anyway, take it or leave it. No matter what my views may shape to be in my life, I will do my best to always convey my position like a gentlemen and expect the same from anyone who would converse with me upon the subject.

    Best Regards,
    Omnislash
  2. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    17 Jul '05 05:09
    William James?
  3. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    17 Jul '05 07:31
    Originally posted by Omnislash
    Despite (or perhaps in spite of) the innumerable academic debates of theology that have raged across time, the fact of the matter is that at only one time will we see clearly, and we will only agree with two populaces. The smalles populace that will share our views at any given time are the other living human beings who share our beliefs. The greates popul ...[text shortened]... t the same from anyone who would converse with me upon the subject.

    Best Regards,
    Omnislash
    ...the fact of the matter is that at only one time will we see clearly...for only when we die can we truly KNOW the truth of the universe and then our perspective shall be true and accurate beyond doubt.

    if it happens to be the case that consciousness ceases at the point of death and we all become nothing more than maggot food, then presumably, the atheist will never 'truly know' that he is right, and the theist will never 'truly know' that he is wrong.

    i agree that it is typically not prudent to judge men solely on their beliefs.

    however, i imagine that within the realm of academic theological debate, it is also an exercise in futility if one presupposes answers to the questions under debate (to presuppose that consciousness transcends natural death, for example).