Originally posted by WulebgrIt isn't a matter of succeeding or failing, it's a matter of being completely neutrel to all aspects of your creation--the idea, the plan, the process, and the finished product. You've admitted your inability to be completely neutrel in all aspects, so why would God be? It doesn't make sense.
I'm not neutral about the event it describes, but I am neutral about the results of my effort to craft this poem.
Sometimes you create, and you neither succeed nor fail. It is just there. You move on and create anew. Such was even the point Socrates made in Plato's Phadreus--a written text becomes an orphan.
Originally posted by CliffLandinMy apologies. Attacking Darfius is almost a reflex for me now. Or, more succinctly, a bad habit like smoking or an addiction like heroin.
Okay, let me clarify the point of this thread:
It isn't a debate of what is or isn't the true religion. It is only a chance for you to post why you believe your religion is the true religion. You aren't going to change my mind, so please stop trying. I have laid out for you what I believe. I am not asking you to verify or deny this, I am asking you to do the same. If you can't handle this then don't post, please.
... --- ...
Originally posted by DarfiusMy point was simply to discredit your claim that a Creator would reveal him- or herself to his or her creation because one cannot be neutral about one's creation.
It doesn't make sense.
It is well established through my observations of creative people, and in western philosophy, that one may create and then let go. If not, there would be little poetry.
I may not have been completely neutral through the whole process of seeking to memoralize the relationship between flatulence and consumption of dogs, but it should be evident that your so-called logic conceals too many arguable assumptions.
Originally posted by WulebgrYou must admit there is a relative scale of importance for creations. I can create excrement, but I value it much less than the short stories I can create.
My point was simply to discredit your claim that a Creator would reveal him- or herself to his or her creation because one cannot be neutral about one's creation.
It is well established through my observations of creative people, and in western philosophy, that one may create and then let go. If not, there would be little poetry.
I may not have been c ...[text shortened]... dogs, but it should be evident that your so-called logic conceals too many arguable assumptions.
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusValue is a subjective measure. For example, I am sure that some
You must admit there is a relative scale of importance for creations. I can create excrement, but I value it much less than the short stories I can create.
people value their excrement more than they value Wulebgr's poem.
Are they 'right' or 'wrong?' We can't say, because there is no 'right'
or 'wrong' answer to whether someone should love, hate, or be
indifferent to one's creation.
As such, we cannot assume simply because there is a Creator that He
loves, hates, or is indifferent to His creation.
Nemesio
Edit: I am not saying that I value my excrement more than Wulebgr's
poem, just to be clear...
Originally posted by DarfiusYou may debate in the spirituality forum, just not in this thread. I think that here in lies the crux of the problem: you seem to think that every thread is your thread for debating the validity of your religion. This just isn't so. In this particular thread I ask that you make a case for your religion, not debate yours or others. Just state your case and thats it.
So I am not to debate here nor in the debate forum? It seems my options are becoming less and less plentiful. Tell me, what is the point of writing something on a forum if you do not expect it to be critiqued? I have a journal for such purposes.
Thanks for your patience, perhaps I wasn't clear from the start.
Originally posted by NemesioPrecisely, we cannot assume He is loving and NEITHER can we assume that He is indifferent or hates it, as agnostics do.
Value is a subjective measure. For example, I am sure that some
people value their excrement more than they value Wulebgr's poem.
Are they 'right' or 'wrong?' We can't say, because there is no 'right'
or 'wrong' answer to whether someone should love, hate, or be
indifferent to one's creation.
As such, we cannot assume simply because th ...[text shortened]...
Edit: I am not saying that I value my excrement more than Wulebgr's
poem, just to be clear...
Agnostics take as much faith as Christianity. It then becomes a matter of who has more evidence.
Originally posted by CliffLandinWell, I'm afraid your request is not in line with what the Forum is for, so I cannot comply. If it was a reasonable request, I would be all too happy to olbige.
You may debate in the spirituality forum, just not in this thread. I think that here in lies the crux of the problem: you seem to think that every thread is your thread for debating the validity of your religion. This just isn't so. In this particular thread I ask that you make a case for your religion, not debate yours or others. Just state your case and thats it.
Thanks for your patience, perhaps I wasn't clear from the start.
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusAgnostics don't assume anything. That's what agnostic means:
Precisely, we cannot assume He is loving and NEITHER can we assume that He is indifferent or hates it, as agnostics do.
without knowledge. So, given that we cannot assume anything
at all, your argument on p. 1 seems to have a problem:
Step 1: there must be a Creator because something cannot come from nothing.
Step 2: that Creator must be God, because it follows logically that if
such a being would have enough love to give us life in the first place,
then He would have more than enough love to contact us and tell us
how to reach Him. Unless one thinks it is logical for a Father not to
love His children?
In step 2, you have now made the assumption that God would
care enough about His Creation. You say that it 'follows logically'
yet, you also said that 'we cannot assume He is loving...indifferent
or hates' His Creation.
Do you see the logical infelicity?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYes I do. But I also see that agnostics who reject God are taking a stance. "I don't know" is a stance. And if they assumed the Creator loved us, Christianity would follow logically. So they must assume that He either hates us or is indifferent.
Agnostics don't assume anything. That's what agnostic means:
without knowledge. So, given that we cannot assume anything
at all, your argument on p. 1 seems to have a problem:
Step 1: there must be a Creator because something cannot come from nothing.
Step 2: [i]that Creator must be God, because it follows logically that if
such a being ...[text shortened]... oving...indifferent
or hates' His Creation.
Do you see the logical infelicity?
Nemesio
Originally posted by DarfiusA discussion would be if you were actually talking to someone, by the amount of time that you spend on the forums, I doubt that that happens very often. And if you were actually to speak to someone face to face they would probably kick the $hit out of you . This is a message post, not a discussion board. You post a message, you don't have a discussion. So post your message and be on your way.
I don't recall ever doing that. Oh, and discussion is between two people. It is not a regurgitating of one's beliefs without expectation of response. That would be a monologue, not advocated in the rules.
Good day.
Originally posted by Darfius
Yes I do.
I'm glad that you recognize your position is illogical. That is very
helpful.
But I also see that agnostics who reject God are taking a stance. "I don't know" is a stance.
Yes, 'I don't know' is a stance, but it is not 'rejecting God.' Do you
see how you are imposing a viewpoint on agnostics? They are saying,
'I don't know' and you are saying, 'You mean, NO.' That's not right,
Darfius.
And if they assumed the Creator loved us, Christianity would follow logically. So they must assume that He either hates us or is indifferent.
You have not demonstrated why this assumption is logical, given that
it is very possible that one might be indifferent or hate one's creation.
So, not only are you asking them to 'assume' God exists but also that
they also 'assume' that God loves His creation.
Furthermore, you are assuming that Christianity is the only religious
tradition wherein 'love' for one's creation is an integral element. But
it is in Islam and Buddhism. Why should they 'assume' that Jesus
was the preferred child of God over Joseph Smith, Buddha or
Mohammed?
Nemesio
Originally posted by CliffLandinCliff, your anger with Darfius is unjust. I'd ask that you desist.
The Forum description is Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after. (Expletive, expletive,
expletive.)
He has a forum for the expression of his ideas. You got what
you want. Why do you come here and torture yourself?
Nemesio